Select any two CPUs for comparison
VS

Gaming Performance Comparison

Recommended System Requirements
Game Athlon 64 FX-53 Athlon 64 FX-55
Cyberpunk 2077 698% 644%
Assassins Creed: Valhalla 974% 901%
Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War 673% 621%
FIFA 21 646% 595%
Grand Theft Auto VI 1211% 1122%
Hitman 3 974% 901%
Genshin Impact 504% 463%
Far Cry 6 1158% 1073%
World of Warcraft: Shadowlands 1140% 1056%
Watch Dogs Legion 974% 901%

In terms of overall gaming performance, the AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 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 FX-55 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 FX-53 and the Athlon 64 FX-55 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 FX-53 and the Athlon 64 FX-55 may still be able to run slightly older games fairly effectively.

Both the AMD Athlon 64 FX-53 and the AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 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 FX-53 and Athlon 64 FX-55 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-55 has a 0.2 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 64 FX-55 have the same L2 cache size, and neither CPU appears to have an L3 cache. They even have the same L1 cache size, so are identical in terms of cache size.

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 FX-53 has a 15 Watt lower Maximum TDP than the Athlon 64 FX-55 (though they were created with the same size 130 nm manufacturing technology). What this means is the Athlon 64 FX-53 will consume slightly less power and consequently produce less heat, enabling more prolonged computational tasks with fewer adverse effects. This will lower your yearly electricity bill slightly, as well as prevent you from having to invest in extra cooling mechanisms (unless you overclock).

CPU Core Details

CPU CodenameSledgeHammerClawHammer
MoBo SocketSocket 939Socket 939
Notebook CPUnono
Release Date01 Jun 200419 Oct 2004
CPU LinkGD LinkGD Link
Approved

CPU Technical Specifications

CPU Cores1vs1
CPU Threads1vs1
Clock Speed2.4 GHzvs2.6 GHz
Turbo Frequency-vs-
System Bus -vs1000 MHz
Max TDP89 Wvs104 W
Lithography130 nmvs130 nm
Bit Width64 Bitvs64 Bit
Max Temperature70°Cvs63°C
Virtualization Technologynovsno
Comparison

CPU Cache and Memory

L1 Cache Size128 KBvs128 KB
L2 Cache Size1024 KBvs1024 KB
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.
Athlon 64 FX-55 is an entry-level Processor based on the 130nm K8 micro-architecture.

It offers 1 Physical Core (1 Logical), clocked at 2.6GHz 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 104W.

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