Athlon 64 3200+ vs Atom E3825

Athlon 64 3200+ vs Atom E3825 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 3200+

1 / 1

505

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Atom E3825

2 / 2

525

+4.0%

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 3200+ vs Atom E3825 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 3200+ vs Atom E3825: 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 3200+

2001

Why buy it

✅300% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Atom E3825.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (505 vs 525).
❌Launch MSRP is still $417 MSRP, while Atom E3825 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌1383.3% higher power demand at 89W vs 6W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Atom E3825 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Atom E3825

2013

Why buy it

✅+4% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 6W instead of 89W, a 83W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail), while Athlon 64 3200+ needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Athlon 64 3200+.

Quick Answers

So, is Atom E3825 better than Athlon 64 3200+?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Athlon 64 3200+ is ahead with a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Atom E3825 pulls ahead with 4% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Atom E3825 is the stronger fit. You are getting 4% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Atom E3825 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Atom E3825 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $417 MSRP, and it still gives you 4% better PassMark. Athlon 64 3200+ only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2001 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (1.2 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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?

Atom E3825 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 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 3200+ vs Atom E3825 Technical Specifications

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

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.

Atom E3825

The Atom E3825 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 8 October 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Bay Trail-I (2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.33 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 525 points. Launch price was $73.

⚡

Processing Power

The Athlon 64 3200+ packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Atom E3825 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Atom E3825 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Athlon 64 3200+ versus 1.33 GHz on the Atom E3825 — a 40.2% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 3200+. The Athlon 64 3200+ uses the Clawhammer (2001−2005) architecture (130 nm), while the Atom E3825 uses Bay Trail-I (2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 3200+ scores 505 against the Atom E3825's 525 — a 3.9% lead for the Atom E3825. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Athlon 64 3200+	Atom E3825
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	2 / 2+100%
Boost Clock	2 GHz+50%	1.33 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512K	512 kB (per core)
Process	130 nm	22 nm-83%
Architecture	Clawhammer (2001−2005)	Bay Trail-I (2013)
PassMark	505	525+4%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 64 3200+ uses the 754 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Atom E3825 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR1-400 on the Athlon 64 3200+ versus DDR3L-1066 on the Atom E3825 — the Atom E3825 supports 166.5% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Atom E3825 supports up to 8 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Athlon 64 3200+) vs 1 (Atom E3825). PCIe lanes: 16 (Athlon 64 3200+) vs 4 (Atom E3825) — the Athlon 64 3200+ offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Socket 939,Socket 754 (Athlon 64 3200+) and Intel FCBGA1170 (Atom E3825).

Feature	Athlon 64 3200+	Atom E3825
Socket	754	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 2.0+82%
Max RAM Speed	DDR1-400	DDR3L-1066+167%
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	8 GB+100%
RAM Channels	2+100%	1
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16+300%	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: false (Athlon 64 3200+) / not specified (Atom E3825). The Atom E3825 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)), while the Athlon 64 3200+ requires a dedicated GPU.