Athlon 64 FX-72 vs Core i3-4000M

Athlon 64 FX-72 vs Core i3-4000M Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 FX-72

2 / 2

1,794

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Core i3-4000M

2 / 4

1,797

+0.2%

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-72 vs Core i3-4000M 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-72 vs Core i3-4000M: 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-72

2006

Why buy it

✅Draws 125W instead of 512W, a 387W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,794 vs 1,797).
❌Launch MSRP is still $799 MSRP, while Core i3-4000M mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Core i3-4000M

2013

Why buy it

✅+0.2% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌309.6% higher power demand at 512W vs 125W.

Quick Answers

So, is Athlon 64 FX-72 better than Core i3-4000M?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Athlon 64 FX-72 is ahead with a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Core i3-4000M pulls ahead with 0.2% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i3-4000M is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

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

Athlon 64 FX-72 is the better buy right now. Athlon 64 FX-72 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $799 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Core i3-4000M is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 0.2% better PassMark. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (2.2 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Core i3-4000M makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2006) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 4 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Athlon 64 FX-72 vs Core i3-4000M Technical Specifications

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

Athlon 64 FX-72

The Athlon 64 FX-72 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Windsor (2006−2007) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: F. Thermal design power (TDP): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR1. Passmark benchmark score: 1,794 points. Launch price was $149.

Core i3-4000M

The Core i3-4000M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 4 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: PGA946. Thermal design power (TDP): 37 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,797 points. Launch price was $225.

⚡

Processing Power

The Athlon 64 FX-72 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, matching the Core i3-4000M's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 2.8 GHz on the Athlon 64 FX-72 versus 2.4 GHz on the Core i3-4000M — a 15.4% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 FX-72. The Athlon 64 FX-72 uses the Windsor (2006−2007) architecture (90 nm), while the Core i3-4000M uses Haswell (2013−2015) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 FX-72 scores 1,794 against the Core i3-4000M's 1,797 — a 0.2% lead for the Core i3-4000M. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon 64 FX-72 vs 3 MB (total) on the Core i3-4000M.

Feature	Athlon 64 FX-72	Core i3-4000M
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 4
Boost Clock	2.8 GHz+17%	2.4 GHz
Base Clock	—	2.4 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	3 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB	256K (per core)+25500%
Process	90 nm	22 nm-76%
Architecture	Windsor (2006−2007)	Haswell (2013−2015)
PassMark	1,794	1,797

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 64 FX-72 uses the F socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Core i3-4000M uses PGA946 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.