Select any two CPUs for comparison
VS

CPU Core Details

CPU Codename Brisbane SledgeHammer
MoBo Socket Socket AM2+ Socket 939
Notebook CPU no no
Release Date 15 Aug 2008 01 Jun 2004
CPU Link GD Link GD Link
Approved

CPU Technical Specifications

{
CPU Cores 2 1
CPU Threads 2 1
Clock Speed 2.9 GHz 2.4 GHz
Turbo Frequency - -
Max TDP 65 W 89 W
Lithography 65 nm 130 nm
Bit Width 64 Bit 64 Bit
Voltage Range 1.10-1.35V KB -
Max Temperature 72°C 70°C
Virtualization Technology no no

CPU Cache and Memory

L1 Cache Size 128 KB 128 KB
L1 Cache Count 2 -
L2 Cache Size 512 KB 1024 KB
L2 Cache Count 2 -
L2 Cache Speed - -
L3 Cache Size - -
Memory Types
ECC Memory Support no no

CPU Graphics

Integrated Graphics no no
Base GPU Frequency - -
Max GPU Frequency - -
DirectX - -
Displays Supported - -

CPU Mini Review

Mini Review On April 21, 2005, less than a week after the release of Venice and San Diego, AMD announced its next addition to the Athlon 64 line, the Athlon 64 X2. Released on May 31, 2005, it also initially had two different core revisions available to the public, Manchester and Toledo, the only appreciable difference between them being the amount of L2 cache. Both were released only for Socket 939. The Athlon 64 X2 was received very well by reviewers and the general public, with a general consensus emerging that AMD's implementation of multi-core was superior to that of the competing Pentium D. Some felt initially that the X2 would cause market confusion with regard to price points since the new processor was targeted at the same enthusiast, US$350 and above market already occupied by AMD's existing socket 939 Athlon 64s. AMD's official breakdown of the chips placed the Athlon X2 aimed at a segment they called the prosumer, along with digital media fans. The Athlon 64 was targeted at the mainstream consumer, and the Athlon FX at gamers. Athlon 64 FX-53 is an entry-level Processor based on the 130nm K8 micro-architecture. It offers 1 Physical Core (1 Logical), clocked at 2.4GHz and 1MB of L2 Cache. No relevant technologies are activated in a way the processor doesn't even support Virtualization. The processor DOES NOT integrate any graphics. and has a rated board TDP of 89W. Its performance is below the average and so most demanding games will not run optimally.

Gaming Performance Comparison

In terms of overall gaming performance, the AMD Athlon 5600B Dual Core is very slightly better than the AMD Athlon 64 FX-53 when it comes to running the latest games. This also means it will be less likely to bottleneck more powerful GPUs, allowing them to achieve more of their gaming performance potential.

Both the Athlon 5600B Dual Core and the Athlon 64 FX-53 were released at the same time, so are likely to be quite similar.

The 2 has 1 more core than the Athlon 64 FX-53. However, while the 2 will probably perform better than the Athlon 64 FX-53, both CPUs are likely to struggle with the latest games, and will almost certainly bottleneck high-end graphics cards. This should not affect games that are a few years old, and even the latest games should at least be playable on very low settings, as only recently have game developers begun to harness the power of multiple cores.

The Athlon 5600B Dual has 1 more threads than the Athlon 64 FX-53. Both CPUs have one thread per physical core.

Multiple threads are useful for improving the performance of multi-threaded applications. Additional cores and their accompanying thread will always be beneficial for multi-threaded applications. Hyperthreading will be beneficial for applications optimized for it, but it may slow others down. For games, the number of threads is largely irrelevant, as long as you have at least 2 cores (preferably 4), and hyperthreading can sometimes even hit performance.

More important for gaming than the number of cores and threads is the clock rate. Problematically, unless the two CPUs are from the same family, this can only serve as a general guide and nothing like an exact comparison, because the clock cycles per instruction (CPI) will vary so much.

The Athlon 5600B Dual and Athlon 64 FX-53 are not from the same family of CPUs, so their clock speeds are by no means directly comparable. Bear in mind, then, that while the Athlon 5600B Dual has a 0.5 GHz faster frequency, this is not always an indicator that it will be superior in performance, despite frequency being crucial when trying to avoid GPU bottlenecking. In this case, however, the difference is enough that it possibly indicates the superiority of the 2.

Aside from the clock rate, the next-most important CPU features for PC game performance are L2 and L3 cache size. Faster than RAM, the more cache available, the more data that can be stored for lightning-fast retrieval. L1 Cache is not usually an issue anymore for gaming, with most high-end CPUs eking out about the same L1 performance, and L2 is more important than L3 - but L3 is still important if you want to reach the highest levels of performance. Bear in mind that although it is better to have a larger cache, the larger it is, the higher the latency, so a balance has to be struck.

The <span class='gpu2Mention'>Athlon 64 FX-53</span> has a 512 KB bigger L2 cache than the <span class='gpu1Mention'>Athlon 5600B Dual</span>, but neither of the CPUs have L3 caches, so the <span class='gpu2Mention'>Athlon 64 FX-53</span> wins out in this area with its larger L2 cache.

The maximum Thermal Design Power is the power in Watts that the CPU will consume in the worst case scenario. The lithography is the semiconductor manufacturing technology being used to create the CPU - the smaller this is, the more transistors that can be fit into the CPU, and the closer the connections. For both the lithography and the TDP, it is the lower the better, because a lower number means a lower amount of power is necessary to run the CPU, and consequently a lower amount of heat is produced.