EPYC 9135 vs Athlon 64 FX-53

VS

Aggregate performance score

Athlon 64 FX-53
2004
1 core / 1 thread, 89 Watt
0.41
EPYC 9135
2024
16 cores / 32 threads, 200 Watt
36.56
+8817%

EPYC 9135 outperforms Athlon 64 FX-53 by a whopping 8817% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Athlon 64 FX-53 and EPYC 9135 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking300096
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data29.27
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Power efficiency0.4417.30
Architecture codenameClawhammer (2001−2005)Turin (2024)
Release dateJune 2004 (20 years ago)10 October 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$30$1,214

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Athlon 64 FX-53 and EPYC 9135 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores1 (Single-Core)16 (Hexadeca-Core)
Threads132
Base clock speedno data3.65 GHz
Boost clock speed2.4 GHz4.3 GHz
L1 cache128 KB80 KB (per core)
L2 cache1 MB1 MB (per core)
L3 cache0 KB64 MB (shared)
Chip lithography130 nm4 nm
Die size193 mm22x 70.6 mm2
Number of transistors105 million16,630 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on Athlon 64 FX-53 and EPYC 9135 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration12
Socket939SP5
Power consumption (TDP)89 Watt200 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 64 FX-53 and EPYC 9135. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI-+
AVX-+
Precision Boost 2no data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon 64 FX-53 and EPYC 9135 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon 64 FX-53 and EPYC 9135. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR5

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon 64 FX-53 and EPYC 9135.

PCIe versionno data5.0
PCI Express lanesno data128

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Athlon 64 FX-53 0.41
EPYC 9135 36.56
+8817%

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

Athlon 64 FX-53 646
EPYC 9135 58070
+8889%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.41 36.56
Physical cores 1 16
Threads 1 32
Chip lithography 130 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 89 Watt 200 Watt

Athlon 64 FX-53 has 124.7% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9135, on the other hand, has a 8817.1% higher aggregate performance score, 1500% more physical cores and 3100% more threads, and a 3150% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 9135 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon 64 FX-53 in performance tests.

Note that Athlon 64 FX-53 is a desktop processor while EPYC 9135 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 64 FX-53 and EPYC 9135, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD Athlon 64 FX-53
Athlon 64 FX-53
AMD EPYC 9135
EPYC 9135

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3 1 vote

Rate Athlon 64 FX-53 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate EPYC 9135 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Athlon 64 FX-53 or EPYC 9135, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.