Athlon 64 4000+ vs E1-1500

Athlon 64 4000+ vs E1-1500 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 4000+

1 / 1

675

+2.3%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

E1-1500

2 / 2

660

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

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 E1-1500 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 E1-1500: 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

✅Better for gaming: +6.3% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 1.4 vs 11.0 PassMark/$ ($482 MSRP vs $60 MSRP).
❌394.4% higher power demand at 89W vs 18W.

E1-1500

2013

Why buy it

✅Costs $422 less on MSRP ($60 MSRP vs $482 MSRP).
✅Delivers 685.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 11.0 vs 1.4 PassMark/$ ($60 MSRP vs $482 MSRP).
✅Draws 18W instead of 89W, a 71W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Athlon 64 4000+ across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (660 vs 675).

Quick Answers

So, is Athlon 64 4000+ better than E1-1500?

Yes. Athlon 64 4000+ is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 6.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 2.3% 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 6.3% 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 2.3% 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 easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Athlon 64 4000+ comes in 703.3% more expensive on MSRP at $482 MSRP versus $60 MSRP, and it still gives you a 6.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. E1-1500 only looks good on raw value math because it is a cheap legacy laptop chip, not because it is a real desktop gaming recommendation. It simply does not keep up in modern games, especially when the gap is already 6.3% in the shared gaming data.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

E1-1500 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 E1-1500 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.

E1-1500

The E1-1500 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Zacate (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.48 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 40 nm process technology. Socket: FT1. Thermal design power (TDP): 18 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 660 points. Launch price was $50.

⚡

Processing Power

The Athlon 64 4000+ packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the E1-1500 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the E1-1500 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the Athlon 64 4000+ versus 1.48 GHz on the E1-1500 — a 54.9% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 4000+. The Athlon 64 4000+ uses the San Diego (2001−2005) architecture (130 nm), while the E1-1500 uses Zacate (2011−2013) (40 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 4000+ scores 675 against the E1-1500's 660 — a 2.2% lead for the Athlon 64 4000+. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Athlon 64 4000+	E1-1500
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	2 / 2+100%
Boost Clock	2.6 GHz+76%	1.48 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512K	512K (per core)
Process	130 nm	40 nm-69%
Architecture	San Diego (2001−2005)	Zacate (2011−2013)
PassMark	675+2%	660

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 64 4000+ uses the 939 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the E1-1500 uses FT1 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Athlon 64 4000+	E1-1500
Socket	939	FT1
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 3.0+173%
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-800	—
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	0	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Athlon 64 4000+ was priced at $482, while the E1-1500 came in at $60. On launch pricing ($482 vs $60), E1-1500 was $422 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 4000+ delivers 1.4 pts/$ vs 11.0 pts/$ for the E1-1500 — making the E1-1500 the 154.8% better value option.

Feature	Athlon 64 4000+	E1-1500
MSRP	$482	$60-88%
Performance per Dollar	1.4	11.0+686%
Release Date	2001	2013

Search Athlon 64 4000+ on Amazon

Search E1-1500 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.