Athlon 300U vs Atom C3958

Athlon 300U vs Atom C3958 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 300U

2 / 4

3,861

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Atom C3958

16 / 16

3,929

+1.8%

About PassMark

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Athlon 300U vs Atom C3958 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Athlon 300U vs Atom C3958: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Athlon 300U

2019

Why buy it

✅Draws 15W instead of 31W, a 16W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon RX Vega 3, while Atom C3958 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Atom C3958 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (3,861 vs 3,929).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (4 MB vs 16 MB).

Atom C3958

2017

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +17.9% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+300% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 4 MB).

Trade-offs

❌106.7% higher power demand at 31W vs 15W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Athlon 300U can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Atom C3958 better than Athlon 300U?

Yes. Atom C3958 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 17.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 1.8% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Atom C3958 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 17.9% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Atom C3958 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.8% better PassMark, backed by 16 cores and 16 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 300% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 4 MB).

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Atom C3958 still makes the most sense overall. Atom C3958 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 17.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Athlon 300U makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2019 vs 2017). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Athlon 300U vs Atom C3958 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Athlon 300U

The Athlon 300U is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Raven Ridge 2 (2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.3 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Dual-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 3,861 points. Launch price was $149.

Atom C3958

The Atom C3958 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 15 August 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Goldmont (2016−2017) architecture. It features 16 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 16 MB. L2 cache: 16 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1310. Thermal design power (TDP): 31 Watt. Memory support: DDR4: 2400. Passmark benchmark score: 3,929 points. Launch price was $449.

⚡

Processing Power

The Athlon 300U packs 2 cores / 4 threads, while the Atom C3958 offers 16 cores / 16 threads — the Atom C3958 has 14 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.3 GHz on the Athlon 300U versus 2 GHz on the Atom C3958 — a 49.1% clock advantage for the Athlon 300U (base: 2.4 GHz vs 2 GHz). The Athlon 300U uses the Raven Ridge 2 (2019) architecture (14 nm), while the Atom C3958 uses Goldmont (2016−2017) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 300U scores 3,861 against the Atom C3958's 3,929 — a 1.7% lead for the Atom C3958. L3 cache: 4 MB (total) on the Athlon 300U vs 16 MB on the Atom C3958.

Feature	Athlon 300U	Atom C3958
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	16 / 16+700%
Boost Clock	3.3 GHz+65%	2 GHz
Base Clock	2.4 GHz+20%	2 GHz
L3 Cache	4 MB (total)	16 MB+300%
L2 Cache	512K (per core)+3100%	16 MB
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Raven Ridge 2 (2019)	Goldmont (2016−2017)
PassMark	3,861	3,929+2%
Geekbench 6 Single	900	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	1,800	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 300U uses the FP5 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Atom C3958 uses FCBGA1310 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR4-2400 memory speed. The Atom C3958 supports up to 256 GB of RAM compared to 32 GB — 700% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 12 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: FP5 (Athlon 300U) and Intel FCBGA1310 (Atom C3958).

Feature	Athlon 300U	Atom C3958
Socket	FP5	FCBGA1310
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2400	DDR4-2400
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB	256 GB+700%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	12	12

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (Athlon 300U) / not specified (Atom C3958). The Athlon 300U includes integrated graphics (Radeon RX Vega 3), while the Atom C3958 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Athlon 300U targets Budget Laptop.