Athlon 64 FX-72 vs i5-540M

Aggregate performance score

Core i5-540M
2010
2 cores / 4 threads, 35 Watt
1.16
+0.9%
Athlon 64 FX-72
2006
2 cores / 2 threads, 125 Watt
1.15

Core i5-540M outperforms Athlon 64 FX-72 by a minimal 1% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i5-540M and Athlon 64 FX-72 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking23752384
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesIntel Core i5no data
Power efficiency3.080.85
Architecture codenameArrandale (2010−2011)Windsor (2006−2007)
Release date7 January 2010 (14 years ago)November 2006 (18 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$257no data

Detailed specifications

Core i5-540M and Athlon 64 FX-72 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 cores2 (Dual-core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speed2.53 GHzno data
Boost clock speed3.07 GHz2.8 GHz
Bus typeDMI 1.0no data
Bus rate1 × 2.5 GT/sno data
Multiplier19no data
L1 cache128 KB128 KB
L2 cache512 KB1 MB
L3 cache3 MB (shared)0 KB
Chip lithography32 nm90 nm
Die size81+114 mm2235 mm2
Maximum core temperature105 °Cno data
Number of transistors382+177 Million227 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Core i5-540M and Athlon 64 FX-72 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1
SocketBGA1288,PGA988F
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt125 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i5-540M and Athlon 64 FX-72. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2no data
AES-NI+-
FMA+-
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology+no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access+no data
PAE36 Bitno data
FDI+no data
Fast Memory Access+no data

Security technologies

Core i5-540M and Athlon 64 FX-72 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i5-540M and Athlon 64 FX-72 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 Core i5-540M and Athlon 64 FX-72. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR1
Maximum memory size8 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth17.051 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel® HD Graphics for Previous Generation Intel® Processorsno data
Clear Video+no data
Clear Video HD+no data
Graphics max frequency766 MHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Core i5-540M and Athlon 64 FX-72 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported2no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i5-540M and Athlon 64 FX-72.

PCIe version2.0no data
PCI Express lanes16no data

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.

i5-540M 1.16
+0.9%
Athlon 64 FX-72 1.15

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.

i5-540M 1808
+0.8%
Athlon 64 FX-72 1794

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.16 1.15
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 32 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 125 Watt

i5-540M has a 0.9% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more threads, a 181.3% more advanced lithography process, and 257.1% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Core i5-540M and Athlon 64 FX-72.

Be aware that Core i5-540M is a notebook processor while Athlon 64 FX-72 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i5-540M and Athlon 64 FX-72, 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.


Intel Core i5-540M
Core i5-540M
AMD Athlon 64 FX-72
Athlon 64 FX-72

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.


3.7 162 votes

Rate Core i5-540M on a scale of 1 to 5:

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

Rate Athlon 64 FX-72 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i5-540M or Athlon 64 FX-72, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.