Athlon 64 3800+ vs Atom E3827

Athlon 64 3800+ vs Atom E3827 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 3800+

1 / 1

648

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Atom E3827

2 / 2

665

+2.6%

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 3800+ vs Atom E3827 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 3800+ vs Atom E3827: 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 3800+

2004

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Atom E3827 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (648 vs 665).
❌Launch MSRP is still $354 MSRP, while Atom E3827 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌1012.5% higher power demand at 89W vs 8W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Atom E3827 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Atom E3827

2013

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +5.9% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 8W instead of 89W, a 81W 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 3800+ needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

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

Quick Answers

So, is Atom E3827 better than Athlon 64 3800+?

Yes. Atom E3827 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 5.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 2.6% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Atom E3827 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 5.9% 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, Atom E3827 is the stronger fit. You are getting 2.6% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Atom E3827 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Atom E3827 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $354 MSRP, and it still gives you a 5.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Athlon 64 3800+ only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2004 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (1.8 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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?

Atom E3827 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2004) 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 3800+ vs Atom E3827 Technical Specifications

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

Athlon 64 3800+

The Athlon 64 3800+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Junho 2004 (21 years ago). It is based on the Venice (2004−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 939. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Memory support: DDR1. Passmark benchmark score: 648 points. Launch price was $160.

Atom E3827

The Atom E3827 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: 1.75 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 8 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 665 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Athlon 64 3800+ packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Atom E3827 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Atom E3827 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the Athlon 64 3800+ versus 1.75 GHz on the Atom E3827 — a 31.3% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 3800+. The Athlon 64 3800+ uses the Venice (2004−2005) architecture (130 nm), while the Atom E3827 uses Bay Trail-I (2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 3800+ scores 648 against the Atom E3827's 665 — a 2.6% lead for the Atom E3827. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Athlon 64 3800+	Atom E3827
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	2 / 2+100%
Boost Clock	2.4 GHz+37%	1.75 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB	512 kB (per core)
Process	130 nm	22 nm-83%
Architecture	Venice (2004−2005)	Bay Trail-I (2013)
PassMark	648	665+3%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 64 3800+ uses the 939 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Atom E3827 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-800 on the Athlon 64 3800+ versus DDR3L-1333 on the Atom E3827 — the Atom E3827 supports 66.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Athlon 64 3800+ supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Athlon 64 3800+) vs 4 (Atom E3827) — the Atom E3827 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD AM2 (Athlon 64 3800+) and Intel FCBGA1170 (Atom E3827).

Feature	Athlon 64 3800+	Atom E3827
Socket	939	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 2.0+82%
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-800	DDR3L-1333+67%
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+100%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	0	4