i7-2640M vs FX-9800P

VS

Aggregate performance score

FX-9800P
2016
4 cores / 4 threads, 15 Watt
1.60
+3.2%
Core i7-2640M
2011
2 cores / 4 threads, 35 Watt
1.55

FX-9800P outperforms Core i7-2640M by a minimal 3% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-9800P and Core i7-2640M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking20912113
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD Bristol RidgeIntel Core i7
Power efficiency10.094.19
Architecture codenameBristol Ridge (2016−2019)Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
Release date31 May 2016 (8 years ago)4 September 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$346

Detailed specifications

FX-9800P and Core i7-2640M 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads44
Base clock speed2.7 GHz2.8 GHz
Boost clock speed3.6 GHz3.5 GHz
Bus typeno dataDMI 2.0
Bus rateno data4 × 5 GT/s
Multiplierno data28
L1 cache320 KB128 KB
L2 cache1 MB (per module)512 KB
L3 cacheno data4 MB
Chip lithography28 nm32 nm
Die size250 mm2149 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °C100 °C
Number of transistors3,100 million624 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on FX-9800P and Core i7-2640M 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 (Uniprocessor)
SocketFP4FCBGA1023,PPGA988
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-9800P and Core i7-2640M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® AVX
AES-NI++
FMA++
AVX++
vProno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
My WiFino data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data2.0
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data+
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Flex Memory Accessno data+
Demand Based Switchingno data-
FDIno data+
Fast Memory Accessno data+

Security technologies

FX-9800P and Core i7-2640M technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDBno data+
Identity Protection-+
Anti-Theftno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-9800P and Core i7-2640M are enumerated here.

AMD-V++
VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-9800P and Core i7-2640M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3, DDR4DDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data16 GB
Max memory channelsno data2
Maximum memory bandwidthno data228.707 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge) ( - 758 MHz)Intel HD Graphics 3000
Quick Sync Video-+
Clear Video HDno data+
Graphics max frequencyno data1.3 GHz
InTru 3Dno data+

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of FX-9800P and Core i7-2640M integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data2
eDPno data+
DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+
SDVOno data+
CRTno data+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-9800P and Core i7-2640M.

PCIe version3.02.0
PCI Express lanes816

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.

FX-9800P 1.60
+3.2%
i7-2640M 1.55

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.

FX-9800P 2543
+3.1%
i7-2640M 2467

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

FX-9800P 496
i7-2640M 515
+3.8%

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

FX-9800P 1119
+9.8%
i7-2640M 1019

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

FX-9800P 14.4
+5.1%
i7-2640M 15.14

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

FX-9800P 3
i7-2640M 3
+10.1%

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

FX-9800P 0.91
i7-2640M 1.36
+49.5%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.60 1.55
Integrated graphics card 1.95 0.66
Recency 31 May 2016 4 September 2011
Physical cores 4 2
Chip lithography 28 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 35 Watt

FX-9800P has a 3.2% higher aggregate performance score, 195.5% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 4 years, 100% more physical cores, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 133.3% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between FX-9800P and Core i7-2640M.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-9800P and Core i7-2640M, 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 FX-9800P
FX-9800P
Intel Core i7-2640M
Core i7-2640M

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 44 votes

Rate FX-9800P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 344 votes

Rate Core i7-2640M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-9800P or Core i7-2640M, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.