Athlon 64 3400+ vs Atom E3825

Athlon 64 3400+ vs Atom E3825 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 3400+

1 / 1

545

+3.8%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Atom E3825

2 / 2

525

0.0%

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 3400+ 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 3400+ 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 3400+

2001

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +7.7% higher average FPS across 47 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $440 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

✅Draws 6W instead of 89W, a 83W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail), while Athlon 64 3400+ needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Athlon 64 3400+ across 47 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (525 vs 545).

Quick Answers

So, is Athlon 64 3400+ better than Atom E3825?

Yes. Athlon 64 3400+ is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 7.7% average FPS lead across 47 shared CPU game tests in our data and 3.8% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Athlon 64 3400+ is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 7.7% more average FPS across 47 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Athlon 64 3400+ is the stronger fit. You are getting 3.8% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Athlon 64 3400+ is the better buy right now. Athlon 64 3400+ comes in at an unclear MSRP at $440 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 7.7% average FPS lead across 47 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (1.2 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Athlon 64 3400+ vs Atom E3825 Technical Specifications

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

Athlon 64 3400+

The Athlon 64 3400+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Clawhammer (2001−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.4 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: 545 points. Launch price was $149.

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 3400+ packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Atom E3825 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Atom E3825 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the Athlon 64 3400+ versus 1.33 GHz on the Atom E3825 — a 57.4% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 3400+. The Athlon 64 3400+ uses the Clawhammer (2001−2005) architecture (130 nm), while the Atom E3825 uses Bay Trail-I (2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 3400+ scores 545 against the Atom E3825's 525 — a 3.7% lead for the Athlon 64 3400+. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Athlon 64 3400+	Atom E3825
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	2 / 2+100%
Boost Clock	2.4 GHz+80%	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	545+4%	525

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 64 3400+ 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 DDR-400 on the Athlon 64 3400+ versus DDR3L-1066 on the Atom E3825 — the Atom E3825 supports -366.5% 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. Both feature 1-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Athlon 64 3400+) vs 4 (Atom E3825) — the Atom E3825 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD 754 (Athlon 64 3400+) and Intel FCBGA1170 (Atom E3825).

Feature	Athlon 64 3400+	Atom E3825
Socket	754	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 2.0+82%
Max RAM Speed	DDR-400	DDR3L-1066
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	8 GB+100%
RAM Channels	1	1
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	0	4