Athlon 64 3100+ vs Opteron 146

Athlon 64 3100+ vs Opteron 146 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 3100+

1 / 1

475

0.0%

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

Opteron 146

1 / 1

505

+6.3%

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 3100+ vs Opteron 146 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 3100+ vs Opteron 146: 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 3100+

2008

Why buy it

✅Draws 25W instead of 89W, a 64W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Opteron 146 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (475 vs 505).
❌Launch MSRP is still $100 MSRP, while Opteron 146 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Opteron 146

2003

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +8.2% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌256% higher power demand at 89W vs 25W.

Quick Answers

So, is Opteron 146 better than Athlon 64 3100+?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Opteron 146 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Athlon 64 3100+ is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Opteron 146 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 8.2% 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, Opteron 146 is the stronger fit. You are getting 6.3% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Opteron 146 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Opteron 146 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $100 MSRP, and it still gives you a 8.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Athlon 64 3100+ only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2008 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (4.8 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on AM2.

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

Athlon 64 3100+ makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2008 vs 2003). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Athlon 64 3100+ vs Opteron 146 Technical Specifications

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

Athlon 64 3100+

The Athlon 64 3100+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Lima (2008−2009) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2 GHz. L2 cache: 512K. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: AM2. Thermal design power (TDP): 25 Watt. Memory support: DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 475 points. Launch price was $149.

Opteron 146

The Opteron 146 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Setembro 2003 (22 years ago). It is based on the SledgeHammer (2003−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 940. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 505 points. Launch price was $60.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Athlon 64 3100+ and Opteron 146 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Athlon 64 3100+ versus 2 GHz on the Opteron 146 — identical boost frequencies. The Athlon 64 3100+ uses the Lima (2008−2009) architecture (65 nm), while the Opteron 146 uses SledgeHammer (2003−2005) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 3100+ scores 475 against the Opteron 146's 505 — a 6.1% lead for the Opteron 146.

Feature	Athlon 64 3100+	Opteron 146
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2 GHz	2 GHz
L3 Cache	—	0 kB
L2 Cache	512K+51100%	1 MB
Process	65 nm-50%	130 nm
Architecture	Lima (2008−2009)	SledgeHammer (2003−2005)
PassMark	475	505+6%
Geekbench 6 Single	280	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	280	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 64 3100+ uses the AM2 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Opteron 146 uses 940 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Athlon 64 3100+	Opteron 146
Socket	AM2	940
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-800	—
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (Athlon 64 3100+) / not specified (Opteron 146). Primary use case: Athlon 64 3100+ targets Legacy Desktop. Direct competitor: Athlon 64 3100+ rivals Celeron D 352.