Athlon 64 3400+ vs Xeon 3.20

Athlon 64 3400+ vs Xeon 3.20 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 3400+

1 / 1

545

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Xeon 3.20

1 / 1

575

+5.5%

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 Xeon 3.20 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 Xeon 3.20: 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

✅Costs $411 less on MSRP ($440 MSRP vs $851 MSRP).
✅Delivers 83.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 1.2 vs 0.7 PassMark/$ ($440 MSRP vs $851 MSRP).
✅Draws 89W instead of 97W, a 8W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (545 vs 575).

Xeon 3.20

2003

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 0.7 vs 1.2 PassMark/$ ($851 MSRP vs $440 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon 3.20 better than Athlon 64 3400+?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon 3.20 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Athlon 64 3400+ is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Xeon 3.20 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.4% 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, Xeon 3.20 is the stronger fit. You are getting 5.5% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Xeon 3.20 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Xeon 3.20 comes in 93.4% more expensive on MSRP at $851 MSRP versus $440 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.4% average FPS lead across 47 shared CPU game tests in our data. Athlon 64 3400+ only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2001 platform. Even with 83.3% better value on paper (1.2 vs 0.7 PassMark/$), 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?

Xeon 3.20 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2003 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 3400+ vs Xeon 3.20 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.

Xeon 3.20

The Xeon 3.20 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Gallatin (2003−2004) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: PGA604. Thermal design power (TDP): 97 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 575 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Athlon 64 3400+ and Xeon 3.20 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the Athlon 64 3400+ versus 3.2 GHz on the Xeon 3.20 — a 28.6% clock advantage for the Xeon 3.20. The Athlon 64 3400+ uses the Clawhammer (2001−2005) architecture (130 nm), while the Xeon 3.20 uses Gallatin (2003−2004) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 3400+ scores 545 against the Xeon 3.20's 575 — a 5.4% lead for the Xeon 3.20. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon 64 3400+ vs 2 MB on the Xeon 3.20.

Feature	Athlon 64 3400+	Xeon 3.20
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2.4 GHz	3.2 GHz+33%
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB
L2 Cache	512K	512 kB
Process	130 nm	130 nm
Architecture	Clawhammer (2001−2005)	Gallatin (2003−2004)
PassMark	545	575+6%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 64 3400+ uses the 754 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Xeon 3.20 uses PGA604 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Athlon 64 3400+	Xeon 3.20
Socket	754	PGA604
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 2.0+82%
Max RAM Speed	DDR-400	—
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	—
RAM Channels	1	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	0	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Athlon 64 3400+ was priced at $440, while the Xeon 3.20 came in at $851. On launch pricing ($440 vs $851), Athlon 64 3400+ was $411 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 3400+ delivers 1.2 pts/$ vs 0.7 pts/$ for the Xeon 3.20 — making the Athlon 64 3400+ the 58.8% better value option.

Feature	Athlon 64 3400+	Xeon 3.20
MSRP	$440-48%	$851
Performance per Dollar	1.2+71%	0.7
Release Date	2001	2003

Search Athlon 64 3400+ on Amazon

Search Xeon 3.20 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.