Athlon 64 FX-51 vs Turion 64 ML-44

Athlon 64 FX-51 vs Turion 64 ML-44 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 FX-51

1 / 1

615

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Turion 64 ML-44

1 / 1

645

+4.9%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

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.

Athlon 64 FX-51 vs Turion 64 ML-44 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Athlon 64 FX-51 vs Turion 64 ML-44: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Athlon 64 FX-51

2003

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Turion 64 ML-44 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (615 vs 645).
❌Launch MSRP is still $733 MSRP, while Turion 64 ML-44 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌8800% higher power demand at 89W vs 1W.

Turion 64 ML-44

2006

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +6.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 1W instead of 89W, a 88W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Quick Answers

So, is Turion 64 ML-44 better than Athlon 64 FX-51?

Yes. Turion 64 ML-44 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 6.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 4.9% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Turion 64 ML-44 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 6.4% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Turion 64 ML-44 is the stronger fit. You are getting 4.9% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Turion 64 ML-44 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Turion 64 ML-44 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $733 MSRP, and it still gives you a 6.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Athlon 64 FX-51 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2003 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (0.8 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on 940.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Turion 64 ML-44 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2006 vs 2003) and more multi-core headroom with 1 cores / 1 threads instead of 1/1. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Athlon 64 FX-51 vs Turion 64 ML-44 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

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.

Turion 64 ML-44

The Turion 64 ML-44 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Lancaster (2005−2006) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: 754. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 645 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Athlon 64 FX-51 and Turion 64 ML-44 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 Turion 64 ML-44 — a 8.7% clock advantage for the Turion 64 ML-44. The Athlon 64 FX-51 uses the SledgeHammer (2003−2005) architecture (130 nm), while the Turion 64 ML-44 uses Lancaster (2005−2006) (90 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 FX-51 scores 615 against the Turion 64 ML-44's 645 — a 4.8% lead for the Turion 64 ML-44. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Athlon 64 FX-51	Turion 64 ML-44
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2.2 GHz	2.4 GHz+9%
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB	1 MB
Process	130 nm	90 nm-31%
Architecture	SledgeHammer (2003−2005)	Lancaster (2005−2006)
PassMark	615	645+5%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 64 FX-51 uses the 940 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Turion 64 ML-44 uses 754 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.