Athlon 64 3500+ vs Opteron 248

AMD

Athlon 64 3500+

1 Cores1 Thrd89 WWMax: 2.2 GHz2001
Similar parts
·······
VS
AMD

Opteron 248

1 Cores1 Thrd89 WWMax: 2.2 GHz2003
Similar parts
·······

Athlon 64 3500+ vs Opteron 248 Performance Spectrum

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 3500+ vs Opteron 248 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 3500+ vs Opteron 248: 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 3500+

2001

Why buy it

    Trade-offs

    • Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Opteron 248 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
    • Lower PassMark (570 vs 585).
    • Launch MSRP is still $272 MSRP, while Opteron 248 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

    Opteron 248

    2003

    Why buy it

    • Better for gaming: +7.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.

    Trade-offs

    • Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

    Quick Answers

    So, is Opteron 248 better than Athlon 64 3500+?
    Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Opteron 248 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Athlon 64 3500+ is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.
    Which one is better for gaming?
    If gaming is the priority, Opteron 248 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 7.0% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.
    Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
    For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Opteron 248 is the stronger fit. You are getting 2.6% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.
    Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
    Opteron 248 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Opteron 248 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $272 MSRP, and it still gives you a 7.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Athlon 64 3500+ only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2001 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (2.1 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on 939.
    Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
    Opteron 248 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 3500+ vs Opteron 248 Technical Specifications

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

    AMD

    Athlon 64 3500+

    The Athlon 64 3500+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Janeiro 2001 (24 years ago). It is based on the San Diego (2001−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 939. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 570 points. Launch price was $59.

    AMD

    Opteron 248

    The Opteron 248 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Novembro 2003 (22 years ago). It is based on the SledgeHammer (2003−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 940. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 585 points. Launch price was $12.

    Processing Power

    Both the Athlon 64 3500+ and Opteron 248 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.2 GHz on the Athlon 64 3500+ versus 2.2 GHz on the Opteron 248 — identical boost frequencies. The Athlon 64 3500+ uses the San Diego (2001−2005) architecture (130 nm), while the Opteron 248 uses SledgeHammer (2003−2005) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 3500+ scores 570 against the Opteron 248's 585 — a 2.6% lead for the Opteron 248. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

    FeatureAthlon 64 3500+Opteron 248
    Cores / Threads
    1 / 1
    1 / 1
    Boost Clock
    2.2 GHz
    2.2 GHz
    L3 Cache
    0 kB
    0 kB
    L2 Cache
    512 kB
    1 MB+100%
    Process
    130 nm
    130 nm
    Architecture
    San Diego (2001−2005)
    SledgeHammer (2003−2005)
    PassMark
    570
    585+3%
    🧠

    Memory & Platform

    The Athlon 64 3500+ uses the 939 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Opteron 248 uses 940 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

    FeatureAthlon 64 3500+Opteron 248
    Socket
    939
    940
    PCIe Generation
    PCIe 1.1
    PCIe 2.0+82%
    Max RAM Speed
    DDR-400
    Max RAM Capacity
    4 GB
    RAM Channels
    2
    ECC Support
    No
    PCIe Lanes
    0