Xeon w9-3595X vs Athlon 64 FX-55

VS

Aggregate performance score

Athlon 64 FX-55
2004
1 core / 1 thread, 104 Watt
0.25
Xeon w9-3595X
2024
60 cores / 120 threads, 385 Watt
62.25
+24800%

Xeon w9-3595X outperforms Athlon 64 FX-55 by a whopping 24800% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Athlon 64 FX-55 and Xeon w9-3595X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking314713
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data20.19
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Power efficiency0.2315.30
Architecture codenameClawhammer (2001−2005)Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024)
Release date10 October 2004 (20 years ago)24 August 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$180$5,889

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Athlon 64 FX-55 and Xeon w9-3595X have a nearly equal value for money.

Detailed specifications

Athlon 64 FX-55 and Xeon w9-3595X 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)60 (Hexaconta-Core)
Threads1120
Base clock speed2.6 GHz2 GHz
Boost clock speed2.6 GHz4.8 GHz
L1 cache128 KB80 KB (per core)
L2 cache1 MB2 MB (per core)
L3 cache0 KB112.5 MB
Chip lithography130 nmIntel 7 nm
Die size193 mm24x 477 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)63 °C81 °C
Number of transistors105 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data
Unlocked multiplier++

Compatibility

Information on Athlon 64 FX-55 and Xeon w9-3595X 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 configuration11
Socket939FCLGA4677
Power consumption (TDP)104 Watt385 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 64 FX-55 and Xeon w9-3595X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® AMX, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512
AES-NI-+
AVX-+
vProno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data2.0
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data+
TSX-+
Turbo Boost Max 3.0no data+
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

Athlon 64 FX-55 and Xeon w9-3595X technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDBno data+
SGXno data-
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon 64 FX-55 and Xeon w9-3595X are enumerated here.

VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon 64 FX-55 and Xeon w9-3595X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1 Depends on motherboardDDR5-4800
Maximum memory sizeno data4 TB
Max memory channelsno data8
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)N/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon 64 FX-55 and Xeon w9-3595X.

PCIe versionno data5.0
PCI Express lanesno data112

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-55 0.25
Xeon w9-3595X 62.25
+24800%

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-55 404
Xeon w9-3595X 98888
+24377%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.25 62.25
Recency 10 October 2004 24 August 2024
Physical cores 1 60
Threads 1 120
Power consumption (TDP) 104 Watt 385 Watt

Athlon 64 FX-55 has 270.2% lower power consumption.

Xeon w9-3595X, on the other hand, has a 24800% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 19 years, and 5900% more physical cores and 11900% more threads.

The Xeon w9-3595X is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon 64 FX-55 in performance tests.

Note that Athlon 64 FX-55 is a desktop processor while Xeon w9-3595X is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 64 FX-55 and Xeon w9-3595X, 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-55
Athlon 64 FX-55
Intel Xeon w9-3595X
Xeon w9-3595X

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.


3.7 3 votes

Rate Athlon 64 FX-55 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 37 votes

Rate Xeon w9-3595X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Athlon 64 FX-55 or Xeon w9-3595X, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.