Athlon 64 FX-51 vs Athlon 64 3600+
Athlon 64 FX-51
Athlon 64 3600+
Performance Spectrum - CPU
About PassMark
PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Athlon 64 FX-51 is positioned at rank 1133 and the Athlon 64 3600+ is on rank 1078, so the Athlon 64 3600+ offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Athlon 64 FX-51
Performance Per Dollar Athlon 64 3600+
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon 64 FX-51 | Athlon 64 3600+ |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($733) | ✅ More affordable ($15) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (SledgeHammer (2003−2005) / 130 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Clawhammer (2001−2005) / 130 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon 64 FX-51 | Athlon 64 3600+ |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+4628%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($733) | ✅ More affordable ($15) |
Performance Check
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Athlon 64 FX-51 and Athlon 64 3600+
Athlon 64 FX-51
The Athlon 64 FX-51 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the SledgeHammer (2003−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 940. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 615 points. Launch price was $149.
Athlon 64 3600+
The Athlon 64 3600+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Clawhammer (2001−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.4 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 754. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Memory support: DDR1. Passmark benchmark score: 595 points. Launch price was $149.
Processing Power
Both the Athlon 64 FX-51 and Athlon 64 3600+ share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.2 GHz on the Athlon 64 FX-51 versus 2.4 GHz on the Athlon 64 3600+ — a 8.7% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 3600+. The Athlon 64 FX-51 uses the SledgeHammer (2003−2005) architecture (130 nm), while the Athlon 64 3600+ uses Clawhammer (2001−2005) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 FX-51 scores 615 against the Athlon 64 3600+'s 595 — a 3.3% lead for the Athlon 64 FX-51.
| Feature | Athlon 64 FX-51 | Athlon 64 3600+ |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 1 / 1 | 1 / 1 |
| Boost Clock | 2.2 GHz | 2.4 GHz+9% |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | — |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
| Process | 130 nm | 130 nm |
| Architecture | SledgeHammer (2003−2005) | Clawhammer (2001−2005) |
| PassMark | 615+3% | 595 |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon 64 FX-51 uses the 940 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Athlon 64 3600+ uses 754 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR-400 on the Athlon 64 FX-51 versus DDR2-800 on the Athlon 64 3600+ — the Athlon 64 3600+ supports -202% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Athlon 64 3600+ supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 120% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: AMD 940 (Athlon 64 FX-51) and AMD AM2 (Athlon 64 3600+).
| Feature | Athlon 64 FX-51 | Athlon 64 3600+ |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | 940 | 754 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 1.1 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR-400 | DDR2-800 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 4 GB | 16 GB+300% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ✅ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 0 |
Value Analysis
The Athlon 64 FX-51 launched at $733 MSRP, while the Athlon 64 3600+ debuted at $149. At current prices ($733 vs $15), the Athlon 64 3600+ is $718 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 FX-51 delivers 0.8 pts/$ vs 39.7 pts/$ for the Athlon 64 3600+ — making the Athlon 64 3600+ the 191.7% better value option.
| Feature | Athlon 64 FX-51 | Athlon 64 3600+ |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $733 | $149-80% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $733 | $15-98% |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.8 | 39.7+4863% |
| Release Date | 2003 | 2004 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Athlon 64 FX-51 and Athlon 64 3600+
