Select any two CPUs for comparison
VS

Gaming Performance Comparison

Recommended System Requirements
Game Athlon 64 1640B Athlon 64 FX-53
Cyberpunk 2077 670% 698%
Hitman 3 937% 974%
Assassins Creed: Valhalla 937% 974%
Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War 646% 673%
FIFA 21 620% 646%
Grand Theft Auto VI 1166% 1211%
Far Cry 6 1115% 1158%
Genshin Impact 483% 504%
Battlefield 6 978% 1016%
Resident Evil 8 755% 786%

In terms of overall gaming performance, the AMD Athlon 64 1640B is marginally 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.

The Athlon 64 1640B was released less than a year after the Athlon 64 FX-53, and so they are likely to have similar levels of support, and similarly optimized performance when running the latest games.

The Athlon 64 1640B and the Athlon 64 FX-53 both have 1 cores, and so are quite likely to struggle with the latest games, or at least bottleneck high-end graphics cards when running them. With a decent accompanying GPU, the Athlon 64 1640B and the Athlon 64 FX-53 may still be able to run slightly older games fairly effectively.

Both the AMD Athlon 64 1640B and the AMD Athlon 64 FX-53 have the same number of threads. 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 64 1640B 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 64 1640B has a 0.3 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 .

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 Athlon 64 FX-53 has a 512 KB bigger L2 cache than the Athlon 64 1640B, but neither of the CPUs have L3 caches, so the Athlon 64 FX-53 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.

The Athlon 64 1640B has a 44 Watt lower Maximum TDP than the Athlon 64 FX-53, and was created with a 65 nm smaller manufacturing technology. What this means is the Athlon 64 1640B will consume significantly less power and consequently produce less heat, enabling more prolonged computational tasks with fewer adverse effects. This will lower your yearly electricity bill significantly, as well as prevent you from having to invest in extra cooling mechanisms (unless you overclock).

CPU Core Details

CPU CodenameLimaSledgeHammer
MoBo SocketSocket 939Socket 939
Notebook CPUnono
Release Date19 Oct 200401 Jun 2004
CPU LinkGD LinkGD Link
Approved

CPU Technical Specifications

CPU Cores1vs1
CPU Threads1vs1
Clock Speed2.7 GHzvs2.4 GHz
Turbo Frequency-vs-
Max TDP45 Wvs89 W
Lithography65 nmvs130 nm
Bit Width64 Bitvs64 Bit
Max Temperature65°Cvs70°C
Virtualization Technologynovsno
Comparison

CPU Cache and Memory

L1 Cache Size128 KBvs128 KB
L1 Cache Count1vs-
L2 Cache Size512 KBvs1024 KB
L2 Cache Count1vs-
L2 Cache Speed-vs-
L3 Cache Size-vs-
Memory Channels-vs-
ECC Memory Supportnovsno
Comparison

CPU Graphics

Graphics
Base GPU Frequency-vs-
Max GPU Frequency-vs-
DirectX-vs-
Displays Supported-vs-
Comparison

CPU Package and Version Specifications

Package Size-vs-
Revision-vs-
PCIe Revision-vs-
PCIe Configurations-vs-

Gaming Performance Value

Performance Value

CPU Mini Review

Mini ReviewAthlon 64 1640B is an entry-level Processor based on the 65nm K8 micro-architecture.

It offers 1 Physical Core (1 Logical), clocked at 2.7GHz and 1MB of L2 Cache.
Among its many features, Virtualization is activated.

The processor DOES NOT integrate any graphics. and has a rated board TDP of 45W.

Its performance is below the average and so most demanding games will not run optimally.
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.