Athlon 64 4000+ vs Atom E3827

Athlon 64 4000+ vs Atom E3827 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 4000+

1 / 1

675

+1.5%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Atom E3827

2 / 2

665

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 4000+ 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 4000+ 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 4000+

2001

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $482 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

✅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 4000+ needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (665 vs 675).

Quick Answers

So, is Athlon 64 4000+ better than Atom E3827?

Yes. Athlon 64 4000+ is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 1.5% 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 4000+ is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.1% 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, Athlon 64 4000+ is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.5% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Athlon 64 4000+ is the better buy right now. Athlon 64 4000+ comes in at an unclear MSRP at $482 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (1.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 E3827 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 4000+ vs Atom E3827 Technical Specifications

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

Athlon 64 4000+

The Athlon 64 4000+ 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: 2.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 939. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 675 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 4000+ packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Atom E3827 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Atom E3827 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the Athlon 64 4000+ versus 1.75 GHz on the Atom E3827 — a 39.1% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 4000+. The Athlon 64 4000+ uses the San Diego (2001−2005) architecture (130 nm), while the Atom E3827 uses Bay Trail-I (2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 4000+ scores 675 against the Atom E3827's 665 — a 1.5% lead for the Athlon 64 4000+. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Athlon 64 4000+	Atom E3827
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	2 / 2+100%
Boost Clock	2.6 GHz+49%	1.75 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512K	512 kB (per core)
Process	130 nm	22 nm-83%
Architecture	San Diego (2001−2005)	Bay Trail-I (2013)
PassMark	675+2%	665

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 64 4000+ 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 4000+ 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 4000+ 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 4000+) vs 4 (Atom E3827) — the Atom E3827 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD AM2 (Athlon 64 4000+) and Intel FCBGA1170 (Atom E3827).

Feature	Athlon 64 4000+	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