EPYC 9575F vs Athlon 64 FX-53

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

Comparing Athlon 64 FX-53 and EPYC 9575F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2999not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Power efficiency0.44no data
Architecture codenameClawhammer (2001−2005)Turin (2024)
Release dateJune 2004 (20 years ago)10 October 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$30$11,791

Detailed specifications

Athlon 64 FX-53 and EPYC 9575F 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)64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core)
Threads1128
Base clock speedno data3.3 GHz
Boost clock speed2.4 GHz5 GHz
L1 cache128 KB80 KB (per core)
L2 cache1 MB1 MB (per core)
L3 cache0 KB256 MB (shared)
Chip lithography130 nm4 nm
Die size193 mm28x 70.6 mm2
Number of transistors105 million66,520 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on Athlon 64 FX-53 and EPYC 9575F 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 Watt400 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 64 FX-53 and EPYC 9575F. 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 9575F are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon 64 FX-53 and EPYC 9575F. 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 9575F.

PCIe versionno data5.0
PCI Express lanesno data128

Pros & cons summary


Physical cores 1 64
Threads 1 128
Chip lithography 130 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 89 Watt 400 Watt

Athlon 64 FX-53 has 349.4% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9575F, on the other hand, has 6300% more physical cores and 12700% more threads, and a 3150% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Athlon 64 FX-53 and EPYC 9575F. We've got no test results to judge.

Note that Athlon 64 FX-53 is a desktop processor while EPYC 9575F is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 64 FX-53 and EPYC 9575F, 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 9575F
EPYC 9575F

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 9575F 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 9575F, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.