Athlon 64 FX-57 vs Atom D2550

Athlon 64 FX-57 vs Atom D2550 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 FX-57

1 / 1

720

+0.7%

Athlon 64 2600+

Athlon 64 3100+

Athlon 64 3400+

Mobile Athlon 64 3700+

Ryzen 7 PRO 6860Z

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Atom D2550

2 / 4

715

0.0%

Mobile Pentium 4 2.66

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-57 vs Atom D2550 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-57 vs Atom D2550: 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-57

2005

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $1,031 MSRP, while Atom D2550 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌940% higher power demand at 104W vs 10W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Atom D2550 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Atom D2550

2011

Why buy it

✅Draws 10W instead of 104W, a 94W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel GMA 3650, while Athlon 64 FX-57 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (715 vs 720).

Quick Answers

So, is Athlon 64 FX-57 better than Atom D2550?

Yes. Athlon 64 FX-57 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.7% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Athlon 64 FX-57 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.1% 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, Athlon 64 FX-57 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.7% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Athlon 64 FX-57 is the better buy right now. Athlon 64 FX-57 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $1,031 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (0.7 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Atom D2550 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2005). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Athlon 64 FX-57 vs Atom D2550 Technical Specifications

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

Athlon 64 FX-57

The Athlon 64 FX-57 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the San Diego (2001−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: 939. Thermal design power (TDP): 104 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 720 points. Launch price was $149.

Atom D2550

The Atom D2550 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 4 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: 715 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Athlon 64 FX-57 packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Atom D2550 offers 2 cores / 4 threads — the Atom D2550 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.8 GHz on the Athlon 64 FX-57 versus 1.87 GHz on the Atom D2550 — a 39.8% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 FX-57. The Athlon 64 FX-57 uses the San Diego (2001−2005) architecture (90 nm), while the Atom D2550 uses Cedarview (2011−2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 FX-57 scores 720 against the Atom D2550's 715 — a 0.7% lead for the Athlon 64 FX-57. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Athlon 64 FX-57	Atom D2550
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	2 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	2.8 GHz+50%	1.87 GHz
Base Clock	—	1.86 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB	512K (per core)+51100%
Process	90 nm	32 nm-64%
Architecture	San Diego (2001−2005)	Cedarview (2011−2012)
PassMark	720	715

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 64 FX-57 uses the 939 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Atom D2550 uses FCBGA559 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR-400 on the Athlon 64 FX-57 versus DDR3-1066 on the Atom D2550 — the Atom D2550 supports -366.5% 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-57) vs 1 (Atom D2550). PCIe lanes: 0 (Athlon 64 FX-57) vs 4 (Atom D2550) — the Atom D2550 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD 939 (Athlon 64 FX-57) and Intel FCBGA559 (Atom D2550).

Feature	Athlon 64 FX-57	Atom D2550
Socket	939	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	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	4