Select any two CPUs for comparison
VS

Gaming Performance Comparison

Recommended System Requirements
Game Athlon 64 FX-53 Athlon 4050e Dual Core
Cyberpunk 2077 698% 713%
Hitman 3 974% 995%
Assassins Creed: Valhalla 974% 995%
Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War 673% 688%
FIFA 21 646% 661%
Grand Theft Auto VI 1211% 1237%
Far Cry 6 1158% 1183%
Genshin Impact 504% 516%
World of Warcraft: Shadowlands 1140% 1165%
Battlefield 6 1016% 1038%

In terms of overall gaming performance, the AMD Athlon 64 FX-53 is marginally better than the AMD Athlon 4050e Dual Core 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 4050e Dual 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 4050e Dual has 1 more core than the Athlon 64 FX-53. However, while the Athlon 4050e Dual 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. Both CPUs also have quite low clock frequencies, which means recent games will have to be played at low settings, assuming you own an equivalently powerful GPU.

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 FX-53 and Athlon 4050e Dual 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 FX-53 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. As such, we need to look elsewhere for more reliable comparisons.

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 and the Athlon 4050e Dual have the same L2 cache size, and neither CPU appears to have an L3 cache. In this case, the Athlon 4050e Dual has a 128 KB bigger L1 cache, so would probably provide better performance than the Athlon 64 FX-53, at least in this area.

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 4050e Dual 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 4050e Dual 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 CodenameSledgeHammerBrisbane
MoBo SocketSocket 939Socket AM2
Notebook CPUnono
Release Date01 Jun 200422 Apr 2008
CPU LinkGD LinkGD Link
Approved

CPU Technical Specifications

CPU Cores1vs2
CPU Threads1vs-
Clock Speed2.4 GHzvs2.1 GHz
Turbo Frequency-vs-
Max TDP89 Wvs45 W
Lithography130 nmvs65 nm
Bit Width64 Bitvs-
Max Temperature70°Cvs-
Virtualization Technologynovsno
Comparison

CPU Cache and Memory

L1 Cache Size128 KBvs256 KB
L2 Cache Size1024 KBvs1024 KB
L2 Cache Speed-vs-
L3 Cache Size-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 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.
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.