Athlon 64 3200+ vs Athlon 64 3300+
Athlon 64 3200+
Athlon 64 3300+
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Athlon 64 3200+ is positioned at rank 1118 and the Athlon 64 3300+ is on rank 1097, so the Athlon 64 3300+ offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Athlon 64 3200+
Performance Per Dollar Athlon 64 3300+
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon 64 3200+ | Athlon 64 3300+ |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($10) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($200) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Clawhammer (2001−2005) / 130 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (NewCastle (2004) / 130 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon 64 3200+ | Athlon 64 3300+ |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+1835%) | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($10) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($200) |
Performance Check
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Athlon 64 3200+ and Athlon 64 3300+
Athlon 64 3200+
The Athlon 64 3200+ 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: 505 points. Launch price was $150.
Athlon 64 3300+
The Athlon 64 3300+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the NewCastle (2004) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 256 kB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 754. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 522 points. Launch price was $149.
Processing Power
Both the Athlon 64 3200+ and Athlon 64 3300+ share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Athlon 64 3200+ versus 2.4 GHz on the Athlon 64 3300+ — a 18.2% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 3300+. The Athlon 64 3200+ uses the Clawhammer (2001−2005) architecture (130 nm), while the Athlon 64 3300+ uses NewCastle (2004) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 3200+ scores 505 against the Athlon 64 3300+'s 522 — a 3.3% lead for the Athlon 64 3300+. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.
| Feature | Athlon 64 3200+ | Athlon 64 3300+ |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 1 / 1 | 1 / 1 |
| Boost Clock | 2 GHz | 2.4 GHz+20% |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 512K+100% | 256 kB |
| Process | 130 nm | 130 nm |
| Architecture | Clawhammer (2001−2005) | NewCastle (2004) |
| PassMark | 505 | 522+3% |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 150 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 150 |
Memory & Platform
Both processors use the 754 socket with PCIe 1.1. Both support up to DDR1-400 memory speed. The Athlon 64 3200+ supports up to 4 GB of RAM compared to 3 GB — 28.6% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Athlon 64 3200+) vs 1 (Athlon 64 3300+). PCIe lanes: 16 (Athlon 64 3200+) vs 0 (Athlon 64 3300+) — the Athlon 64 3200+ offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Socket 939,Socket 754 (Athlon 64 3200+) and VIA K8T800,nForce3 (Athlon 64 3300+).
| Feature | Athlon 64 3200+ | Athlon 64 3300+ |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | 754 | 754 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 1.1 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR1-400 | DDR1-400 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 4 GB+33% | 3 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2+100% | 1 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: false (Athlon 64 3200+) vs None (Athlon 64 3300+). Primary use case: Athlon 64 3300+ targets Retro Desktop.
| Feature | Athlon 64 3200+ | Athlon 64 3300+ |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| IGPU Model | — | None |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | false | None |
| Target Use | — | Retro Desktop |
Value Analysis
The Athlon 64 3200+ launched at $417 MSRP, while the Athlon 64 3300+ debuted at $200. At current prices ($10 vs $200), the Athlon 64 3200+ is $190 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 3200+ delivers 50.5 pts/$ vs 2.6 pts/$ for the Athlon 64 3300+ — making the Athlon 64 3200+ the 180.3% better value option.
| Feature | Athlon 64 3200+ | Athlon 64 3300+ |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $417 | $200-52% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $10-95% | $200 |
| Performance per Dollar | 50.5+1842% | 2.6 |
| Release Date | 2001 | 2004 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Athlon 64 3200+ and Athlon 64 3300+
