Athlon 64 3000+ vs E1 Micro-6200T

Athlon 64 3000+ vs E1 Micro-6200T Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 3000+

1 / 1

450

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

E1 Micro-6200T

2 / 2

475

+5.6%

Athlon XP 2100+

Athlon XP 2400+

Athlon XP 2700+

Mobile Athlon 64 2800+

Ryzen 5 8640HS

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

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 64 3000+ vs E1 Micro-6200T 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 64 3000+ vs E1 Micro-6200T: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Athlon 64 3000+

2001

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than E1 Micro-6200T across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (450 vs 475).
❌Launch MSRP is still $149 MSRP, while E1 Micro-6200T mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌2125% higher power demand at 89W vs 4W.

E1 Micro-6200T

2014

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +8.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 4W instead of 89W, a 85W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Quick Answers

So, is E1 Micro-6200T better than Athlon 64 3000+?

Yes. E1 Micro-6200T is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 8.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 5.6% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, E1 Micro-6200T is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 8.7% 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, E1 Micro-6200T is the stronger fit. You are getting 5.6% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

E1 Micro-6200T is still the much better call for a fresh build. E1 Micro-6200T comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $149 MSRP, and it still gives you a 8.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Athlon 64 3000+ only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2001 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (3.0 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on 754.

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

E1 Micro-6200T makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2014 vs 2001) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 1/1. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Athlon 64 3000+ vs E1 Micro-6200T Technical Specifications

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

Athlon 64 3000+

The Athlon 64 3000+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Janeiro 2001 (24 years ago). It is based on the Clawhammer (2001−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 754. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 450 points. Launch price was $65.

E1 Micro-6200T

The E1 Micro-6200T is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 29 April 2014 (11 years ago). It is based on the Mullins (2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1 GHz, with boost up to 1.4 GHz. L2 cache: 1024 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FT3. Thermal design power (TDP): 4 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 475 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Athlon 64 3000+ packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the E1 Micro-6200T offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the E1 Micro-6200T has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Athlon 64 3000+ versus 1.4 GHz on the E1 Micro-6200T — a 35.3% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 3000+. The Athlon 64 3000+ uses the Clawhammer (2001−2005) architecture (130 nm), while the E1 Micro-6200T uses Mullins (2014) (28 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 3000+ scores 450 against the E1 Micro-6200T's 475 — a 5.4% lead for the E1 Micro-6200T.

Feature	Athlon 64 3000+	E1 Micro-6200T
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	2 / 2+100%
Boost Clock	2 GHz+43%	1.4 GHz
Base Clock	—	1 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	—
L2 Cache	512K	1024 kB+100%
Process	130 nm	28 nm-78%
Architecture	Clawhammer (2001−2005)	Mullins (2014)
PassMark	450	475+6%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 64 3000+ uses the 754 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the E1 Micro-6200T uses FT3 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.