Athlon 64 FX-62 vs Xeon W3520

VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon W3520
2009
4 cores / 8 threads, 130 Watt
1.91
+194%

Xeon W3520 outperforms Athlon 64 FX-62 by a whopping 194% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon W3520 and Athlon 64 (Desktop) FX-62 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking19862767
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.27no data
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
Seriesno dataAthlon 64 (Desktop)
Power efficiency1.340.47
Architecture codenameBloomfield (2008−2010)Windsor (2006−2007)
Release date30 March 2009 (15 years ago)no data (2024 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$404no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Xeon W3520 and Athlon 64 (Desktop) FX-62 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)
Threads82
Base clock speed2.66 GHzno data
Boost clock speed2.93 GHz2.8 GHz
Bus rateno data1000 MHz
L1 cache64 KB (per core)no data
L2 cache256 KB (per core)no data
L3 cache8 MB (shared)no data
Chip lithography45 nm90 nm
Die size263 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature68 °Cno data
Number of transistors731 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Xeon W3520 and Athlon 64 (Desktop) FX-62 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 configuration1no data
SocketFCLGA1366no data
Power consumption (TDP)130 Watt125 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon W3520 and Athlon 64 (Desktop) FX-62. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.2no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology1.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
Idle States+no data
Demand Based Switching+no data
PAE36 Bitno data

Security technologies

Xeon W3520 and Athlon 64 (Desktop) FX-62 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 Xeon W3520 and Athlon 64 (Desktop) FX-62 are enumerated here.

VT-x+no data
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon W3520 and Athlon 64 (Desktop) FX-62. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3no data
Maximum memory size24 GBno data
Max memory channels3no data
Maximum memory bandwidth25.6 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardN/Ano data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon W3520 and Athlon 64 (Desktop) FX-62.

PCIe version2.0no 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.

Xeon W3520 1.91
+194%
Athlon 64 FX-62 0.65

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.

Xeon W3520 2924
+194%
Athlon 64 FX-62 993

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.91 0.65
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 8 2
Chip lithography 45 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 130 Watt 125 Watt

Xeon W3520 has a 193.8% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

Athlon 64 FX-62, on the other hand, has 4% lower power consumption.

The Xeon W3520 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon 64 FX-62 in performance tests.

Be aware that Xeon W3520 is a server/workstation processor while Athlon 64 FX-62 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon W3520 and Athlon 64 FX-62, 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 Xeon W3520
Xeon W3520
AMD Athlon 64 FX-62
Athlon 64 FX-62

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.


4.3 120 votes

Rate Xeon W3520 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 10 votes

Rate Athlon 64 FX-62 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon W3520 or Athlon 64 FX-62, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.