Athlon 64 3200+ vs Pentium M 760

Athlon 64 3200+ vs Pentium M 760 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 3200+

1 / 1

505

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Pentium M 760

1 / 1

515

+2.0%

Atom N280

Pentium M 1.40

Mobile Pentium 4 2.66

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 Pentium M 760 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 Pentium M 760: 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

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Pentium M 760.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (505 vs 515).
❌Launch MSRP is still $417 MSRP, while Pentium M 760 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌229.6% higher power demand at 89W vs 27W.

Pentium M 760

2005

Why buy it

✅+2% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 27W instead of 89W, a 62W reduction.

Trade-offs

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

Quick Answers

So, is Pentium M 760 better than Athlon 64 3200+?

Yes. Pentium M 760 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 2% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

For gaming, this matchup is basically a tie in the data we have.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Pentium M 760 is the stronger fit. You are getting 2% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Pentium M 760 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Pentium M 760 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $417 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Athlon 64 3200+ only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2001 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (1.2 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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?

Pentium M 760 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2005 vs 2001) and more multi-core headroom with 1 cores / 1 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 Pentium M 760 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.

Pentium M 760

The Pentium M 760 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Dothan (2004−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 27 Watt. Memory support: DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 515 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Athlon 64 3200+ and Pentium M 760 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Athlon 64 3200+ versus 2 GHz on the Pentium M 760 — identical boost frequencies. The Athlon 64 3200+ uses the Clawhammer (2001−2005) architecture (130 nm), while the Pentium M 760 uses Dothan (2004−2005) (90 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 3200+ scores 505 against the Pentium M 760's 515 — a 2% lead for the Pentium M 760. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Athlon 64 3200+	Pentium M 760
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2 GHz	2 GHz
Base Clock	—	2 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512K+25500%	2 MB
Process	130 nm	90 nm-31%
Architecture	Clawhammer (2001−2005)	Dothan (2004−2005)
PassMark	505	515+2%
Geekbench 6 Single	—	240

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 64 3200+ uses the 754 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Pentium M 760 uses PGA478 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR1-400 on the Athlon 64 3200+ versus DDR2-533 on the Pentium M 760 — the Pentium M 760 supports 33.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Athlon 64 3200+ supports up to 4 GB of RAM compared to 2 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Athlon 64 3200+) vs 0 (Pentium M 760) — the Athlon 64 3200+ offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Socket 939,Socket 754 (Athlon 64 3200+) and 915GM,915PM (Pentium M 760).

Feature	Athlon 64 3200+	Pentium M 760
Socket	754	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR1-400	DDR2-533+33%
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB+100%	2 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization: false (Athlon 64 3200+) / not specified (Pentium M 760). Primary use case: Pentium M 760 targets Mobile. Direct competitor: Pentium M 760 rivals Pentium M 750.