Athlon 64 FX-53 vs Athlon 64 3700+
Athlon 64 FX-53
Athlon 64 3700+
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-53 is positioned at rank 1135 and the Athlon 64 3700+ is on rank 1099, so the Athlon 64 3700+ 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-53
Performance Per Dollar Athlon 64 3700+
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon 64 FX-53 | Athlon 64 3700+ |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | Balanced gaming performance | Balanced gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($15) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($20) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Clawhammer (2001−2005) / 130 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (San Diego (2001−2005) / 130 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon 64 FX-53 | Athlon 64 3700+ |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+38%) | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($15) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($20) |
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-53 and Athlon 64 3700+
Athlon 64 FX-53
The Athlon 64 FX-53 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Junho 2004 (21 years ago). It is based on the Clawhammer (2001−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 939. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 645 points. Launch price was $30.
Athlon 64 3700+
The Athlon 64 3700+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Janeiro 2001 (24 years ago). It is based on the San Diego (2001−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 939. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 622 points. Launch price was $69.
Processing Power
Both the Athlon 64 FX-53 and Athlon 64 3700+ share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the Athlon 64 FX-53 versus 2.4 GHz on the Athlon 64 3700+ — identical boost frequencies. The Athlon 64 FX-53 uses the Clawhammer (2001−2005) architecture (130 nm), while the Athlon 64 3700+ uses San Diego (2001−2005) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 FX-53 scores 645 against the Athlon 64 3700+'s 622 — a 3.6% lead for the Athlon 64 FX-53. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.
| Feature | Athlon 64 FX-53 | Athlon 64 3700+ |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 1 / 1 | 1 / 1 |
| Boost Clock | 2.4 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
| Process | 130 nm | 130 nm |
| Architecture | Clawhammer (2001−2005) | San Diego (2001−2005) |
| PassMark | 645+4% | 622 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 350 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 350 | — |
Memory & Platform
Both processors use the 939 socket with PCIe 1.1. Both support up to DDR-400 memory speed. Both support up to 4 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: nForce3,nForce4,K8T800 (Athlon 64 FX-53) and AMD 939 (Athlon 64 3700+).
| Feature | Athlon 64 FX-53 | Athlon 64 3700+ |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | 939 | 939 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 1.1 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR-400 | DDR-400 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: None (Athlon 64 FX-53) / not specified (Athlon 64 3700+). Primary use case: Athlon 64 FX-53 targets Legacy Desktop.
| Feature | Athlon 64 FX-53 | Athlon 64 3700+ |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | Yes | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | None | — |
| Target Use | Legacy Desktop | — |
Value Analysis
The Athlon 64 FX-53 launched at $799 MSRP, while the Athlon 64 3700+ debuted at $272. At current prices ($15 vs $20), the Athlon 64 FX-53 is $5 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 FX-53 delivers 43.0 pts/$ vs 31.1 pts/$ for the Athlon 64 3700+ — making the Athlon 64 FX-53 the 32.1% better value option.
| Feature | Athlon 64 FX-53 | Athlon 64 3700+ |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $799 | $272-66% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $15-25% | $20 |
| Performance per Dollar | 43.0+38% | 31.1 |
| Release Date | 2004 | 2001 |
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-53 and Athlon 64 3700+
