AMD Athlon X4 845

The AMD Athlon X4 845 is a desktop processor from the Excavator architecture, built on the Carrizo codename and manufactured on a 28 nm process by GlobalFoundries. It packs 4 cores and 4 threads, with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz, all within a 65 W TDP envelope. The benchmark data places this chip at the 31st percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1106, indicating it sits firmly in the entry-level segment of the performance spectrum. This analysis interprets the available benchmark results, power characteristics, and platform support to provide a clear verdict on where this processor stands today.

Benchmark Performance

The Athlon X4 845’s benchmark results reveal a processor that is competitive with its immediate peers but far from a performance leader. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 324 points; in Cinebench R20 multi-core, it reaches 1350 points; and in Cinebench R23 multi-core, it hits 3215 points. These scores, when viewed against the average benchmark score of 1106, confirm that the chip’s multi-threaded output is modest even by the standards of its release generation.

The single-core results are more telling. Cinebench R20 single-core yields 190 points, while Cinebench R23 single-core produces 453 points. These numbers are low in absolute terms, placing the Athlon X4 845 well below modern entry-level processors in tasks that rely on single-thread performance. The delta between multi-core and single-core scaling is not dramatic, but the raw figures suggest that the Excavator architecture’s per-core efficiency is its limiting factor.

Comparing against nearest rivals, the data shows a tight cluster. The AMD Opteron 3280 has an identical average score of 1106, resulting in a 0% delta. The AMD Opteron 4280 and Intel Core i3-8145U both score 1107, putting them 0.1% ahead of the Athlon X4 845. The AMD Ryzen 3 2200U also scores 1107, again 0.1% ahead. These deltas are negligible in real-world terms, meaning the Athlon X4 845 performs statistically on par with these four processors across the aggregate benchmark suite. However, the aggregate hides the specific workload differences—the Opteron parts are server-oriented with different cache hierarchies, while the i3-8145U and Ryzen 3 2200U are low-power mobile chips, so their similar scores come from different architectural trade-offs.

Power and Thermals

The Athlon X4 845 carries a TDP of 65 W, which is a standard figure for desktop processors of its era. This TDP class implies that a capable air cooler—such as a stock cooler or a basic tower-style unit—is sufficient for normal operation. The 28 nm process node from GlobalFoundries is less efficient than modern nodes, so the 65 W figure reflects a design that prioritizes compatibility over extreme power savings.

Given the 65 W TDP, thermal management is straightforward. The processor does not require exotic cooling solutions, and the unlocked multiplier (true for this chip) allows for overclocking within the thermal headroom provided by a modest cooler. The lack of an integrated GPU means all thermal output comes from the CPU cores themselves, which keeps the thermal profile relatively simple. The data does not provide specific temperature figures, but the TDP classification indicates that a standard desktop chassis with adequate airflow will keep this chip within operational limits.

Who Should Consider It

For gaming, the Athlon X4 845 is a poor choice by modern standards. The single-core scores of 453 in Cinebench R23 and 190 in Cinebench R20 are far below what modern game engines require for smooth frame pacing. Many contemporary titles are heavily single-thread reliant, and this chip’s low per-core performance will bottleneck even mid-range graphics cards. The multi-core scores of 3215 in Cinebench R23 do not compensate, as gaming workloads rarely scale perfectly across four threads.

For content creation, the picture is slightly better but still constrained. The multi-core score of 1350 in Cinebench R20 and 3215 in Cinebench R23 indicate that the chip can handle light video editing or batch image processing, but rendering times will be long compared to modern processors. The 4-core, 4-thread configuration lacks simultaneous multithreading, which further limits its throughput in heavily threaded applications like 3D rendering or 4K video export.

For office and general productivity, the Athlon X4 845 is adequate for basic tasks such as web browsing, word processing, and spreadsheet work. The single-core performance, while low, is sufficient for these workloads, and the 65 W TDP means it will not stress a typical office PC’s cooling system. The dual-channel DDR3 memory support with 34.1 GB/s bandwidth is enough for these tasks but may become a bottleneck in memory-intensive applications.

How It Compares

Against the AMD Opteron 3280, the Athlon X4 845 is a statistical tie, with both scoring 1106 on average. The Opteron is a server part with a different cache configuration, but the aggregate benchmark scores show no practical difference in performance. The Athlon’s advantage lies in its desktop socket and unlocked multiplier, which the Opteron lacks.

The AMD Opteron 4280 is 0.1% ahead with an average score of 1107. This delta is within measurement noise, so the two processors are effectively interchangeable in performance. The Opteron 4280 targets server workloads, but the Athlon X4 845’s similar score means it does not lose out significantly in raw compute, though it lacks the Opteron’s platform features.

The Intel Core i3-8145U also scores 1107, putting it 0.1% ahead. This comparison is notable because the i3-8145U is a low-power mobile chip, yet it matches the Athlon in aggregate performance. The Athlon’s desktop power envelope of 65 W does not translate into a performance advantage over the i3’s more efficient architecture, highlighting the Excavator’s age.

The AMD Ryzen 3 2200U, scoring 1107, is 0.1% ahead. Like the i3, this is a mobile processor, and its similar score underscores that the Athlon X4 845 offers no performance edge over modern low-power parts. The Ryzen’s newer architecture achieves comparable results with lower power draw, making the Athlon less compelling in any new build.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score of the AMD Athlon X4 845?

A: The average benchmark score is 1106, placing it at the 31st percentile among all CPUs.

Q: How does the Athlon X4 845 compare to the Intel Core i3-8145U?

A: The Core i3-8145U has an average score of 1107, which is 0.1% higher than the Athlon X4 845’s 1106.

Q: What is the TDP of this processor?

A: The TDP is 65 W, which implies a standard air cooler is sufficient for thermal management.

Q: Does the Athlon X4 845 support ECC memory?

A: No, ECC memory is not supported; it uses dual-channel DDR3 memory with a bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s.

Q: What is the single-core performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The single-core score in Cinebench R23 is 453 points.

Q: Is the multiplier unlocked?

A: Yes, the multiplier is unlocked, allowing for overclocking on compatible FM2+ motherboards.

Platform and Compatibility

The Athlon X4 845 uses the AMD Socket FM2+, which is a legacy platform. The processor supports DDR3 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. ECC memory is not supported, limiting its use in error-sensitive workstation scenarios. The PCIe interface is Gen 3 with 8 lanes from the CPU, which is sufficient for a single mid-range graphics card but restricts multi-GPU setups.

The socket FM2+ platform has no upgrade path to modern AMD processors, as the company moved to AM4 and later sockets. The 28 nm process and Excavator architecture are end-of-life, with the production status listed as end-of-life. The release date of 2016-02-01 means this is an older chip, and the lack of integrated graphics requires a discrete GPU for any display output. The part number is AD845XACI43KA, and the cache configuration includes 320 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2, with no L3 cache.

For a new build, this platform is obsolete, but for an existing FM2+ motherboard, the Athlon X4 845 can serve as a drop-in upgrade for older dual-core or low-end quad-core parts. The 8 PCIe Gen 3 lanes are adequate for a single modern GPU, though the CPU’s low single-core performance will limit frame rates in CPU-bound games.

Single-Thread vs Multi-Thread Behavior

The Athlon X4 845 exhibits a clear disparity between its single-thread and multi-thread capabilities, though both are modest. In Cinebench R23, the multi-core score of 3215 is approximately 7.1 times the single-core score of 453, which is a typical scaling factor for a 4-core, 4-thread processor without simultaneous multithreading. In Cinebench R20, the multi-core score of 1350 is roughly 7.1 times the single-core score of 190, showing consistent scaling across benchmark versions.

This scaling suggests that the processor’s multi-threaded performance scales nearly linearly with core count, which is expected for a design with no shared L3 cache and a simple core layout. However, the absolute single-thread scores are the chip’s Achilles heel. A single-core score of 453 in Cinebench R23 is well below what modern entry-level processors achieve, often exceeding 1000 points. This means that any workload with a serial component—such as game logic, script execution, or single-threaded encoding—will suffer disproportionately.

The multi-thread behavior is better suited for batch operations like video transcoding or rendering, but the lack of SMT limits the chip to four threads. The 65 W TDP and 28 nm process mean that power efficiency is poor by modern standards, but the thermal headroom allows for sustained multi-threaded loads without throttling, assuming adequate cooling. In practice, the Athlon X4 845 is best utilized in scenarios where multi-threaded throughput is the primary requirement and single-thread latency is less critical, but even then, its absolute performance is at the bottom of the current market.