Athlon 64 FX-51 vs Atom D2500
Athlon 64 FX-51
Atom D2500
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 Atom D2500 is on rank 79, so the Atom D2500 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 Atom D2500
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon 64 FX-51 | Atom D2500 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($733) | ✅ More affordable ($42) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (SledgeHammer (2003−2005) / 130 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Cedarview (2011−2012) / 32 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon 64 FX-51 | Atom D2500 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+1617%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($733) | ✅ More affordable ($42) |
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 Atom D2500
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.
Atom D2500
The Atom D2500 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 November 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Cedarview (2011−2012) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.86 GHz, with boost up to 1.87 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA559. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 605 points. Launch price was $69.
Processing Power
The Athlon 64 FX-51 packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Atom D2500 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Atom D2500 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.2 GHz on the Athlon 64 FX-51 versus 1.87 GHz on the Atom D2500 — a 16.2% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 FX-51. The Athlon 64 FX-51 uses the SledgeHammer (2003−2005) architecture (130 nm), while the Atom D2500 uses Cedarview (2011−2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 FX-51 scores 615 against the Atom D2500's 605 — a 1.6% lead for the Athlon 64 FX-51. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.
| Feature | Athlon 64 FX-51 | Atom D2500 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 1 / 1 | 2 / 2+100% |
| Boost Clock | 2.2 GHz+18% | 1.87 GHz |
| Base Clock | — | 1.86 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 512K (per core) |
| Process | 130 nm | 32 nm-75% |
| Architecture | SledgeHammer (2003−2005) | Cedarview (2011−2012) |
| PassMark | 615+2% | 605 |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon 64 FX-51 uses the 940 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Atom D2500 uses FCBGA559 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR-400 on the Athlon 64 FX-51 versus DDR3-1066 on the Atom D2500 — the Atom D2500 supports -203% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 4 GB of RAM. Memory channels: 2 (Athlon 64 FX-51) vs 1 (Atom D2500). PCIe lanes: 0 (Athlon 64 FX-51) vs 4 (Atom D2500) — the Atom D2500 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD 940 (Athlon 64 FX-51) and Intel FCBGA559 (Atom D2500).
| Feature | Athlon 64 FX-51 | Atom D2500 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | 940 | FCBGA559 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 2.0+82% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR-400 | DDR3-1066 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2+100% | 1 |
| ECC Support | ✅ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 4 |
Advanced Features
The Atom D2500 includes integrated graphics (Intel GMA 3600), while the Athlon 64 FX-51 requires a dedicated GPU.
| Feature | Athlon 64 FX-51 | Atom D2500 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | Intel GMA 3600 |
Value Analysis
The Athlon 64 FX-51 launched at $733 MSRP, while the Atom D2500 debuted at $42.
| Feature | Athlon 64 FX-51 | Atom D2500 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $733 | $42-94% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $733 | — |
| Release Date | 2003 | 2011 |
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 Atom D2500
