Ultra 7 164U vs Athlon 64 X2 TK-57
Aggregate performance score
Core Ultra 7 164U outperforms Athlon 64 X2 TK-57 by a whopping 2351% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Athlon 64 X2 TK-57 and Core Ultra 7 164U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3022 | 800 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | 2x Athlon 64 | Intel Meteor Lake-U |
| Power efficiency | 1.18 | 100.00 |
| Architecture codename | Hawk-256 | Meteor Lake-U (2023) |
| Release date | no data | 14 December 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $448 |
Detailed specifications
Athlon 64 X2 TK-57 and Core Ultra 7 164U 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 cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 12 (Dodeca-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 14 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 1.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.9 GHz | 4.8 GHz |
| Bus rate | 667 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 112 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 2 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 12 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | Intel 4 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 110 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon 64 X2 TK-57 and Core Ultra 7 164U 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 configuration | no data | 1 |
| Socket | no data | FCBGA2551 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 31 Watt | 9 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 64 X2 TK-57 and Core Ultra 7 164U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | + |
| SIPP | - | + |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | - |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
| Supported AI Software Frameworks | - | OpenVINO™, WindowsML, ONNX RT |
Security technologies
Athlon 64 X2 TK-57 and Core Ultra 7 164U technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon 64 X2 TK-57 and Core Ultra 7 164U are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon 64 X2 TK-57 and Core Ultra 7 164U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR5 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel® Graphics |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1.8 GHz |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Athlon 64 X2 TK-57 and Core Ultra 7 164U integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Athlon 64 X2 TK-57 and Core Ultra 7 164U integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | no data | 4096 x 2304 @ 60Hz (HDMI 2.1 TMDS) 7680 x 4320 @ 60Hz (HDMI2.1 FRL) |
| Max resolution over eDP | no data | 3840x2400 @ 120Hz |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | no data | 7680 x 4320 @ 60Hz |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Athlon 64 X2 TK-57 and Core Ultra 7 164U integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 12.2 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon 64 X2 TK-57 and Core Ultra 7 164U.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 8 |
| PCI support | no data | 4.0 and 3.0 |
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.39 | 9.56 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 12 |
| Threads | 2 | 14 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 31 Watt | 9 Watt |
Ultra 7 164U has a 2351.3% higher aggregate performance score, 500% more physical cores and 600% more threads, and 244.4% lower power consumption.
The Core Ultra 7 164U is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon 64 X2 TK-57 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 64 X2 TK-57 and Core Ultra 7 164U, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
