Athlon 64 FX-60 vs Core i3-380M

CPU

GPU

Athlon 64 FX-60

2 Cores2 Thrd110 WWMax: 2.6 GHz2006

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Core i3-380M

2 Cores4 Thrd35 WWMax: 0.53 GHz2010

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Athlon 64 FX-60 vs Core i3-380M Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 FX-60

2 / 2

1,205

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Core i3-380M

2 / 4

1,212

+0.6%

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 FX-60 vs Core i3-380M 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 FX-60 vs Core i3-380M: 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 FX-60

2006

Why buy it

✅Includes a boxed cooler (Stock Cooler), unlike Core i3-380M.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (250 vs 450).
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (480 vs 1,100).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 1.2 vs 24.7 PassMark/$ ($1,031 MSRP vs $49 MSRP).
❌214.3% higher power demand at 110W vs 35W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i3-380M can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core i3-380M

2010

Why buy it

✅+80% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
✅Costs $982 less on MSRP ($49 MSRP vs $1,031 MSRP).
✅Delivers 2016.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 24.7 vs 1.2 PassMark/$ ($49 MSRP vs $1,031 MSRP).
✅Draws 35W instead of 110W, a 75W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Athlon 64 FX-60.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i3-380M better than Athlon 64 FX-60?

Yes. Core i3-380M is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.9% average FPS lead across 41 shared CPU game tests in our data, 129.2% better Geekbench multi-core, 0.6% higher 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, Core i3-380M is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.9% more average FPS across 41 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i3-380M is the stronger fit. You are getting 129.2% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

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

Core i3-380M is the better buy right now. Core i3-380M comes in $982 cheaper on MSRP at $49 MSRP versus $1,031 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.9% average FPS lead across 41 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 2016.3% better value on MSRP (24.7 vs 1.2 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Core i3-380M makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2010 vs 2006) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 4 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Athlon 64 FX-60 vs Core i3-380M Technical Specifications

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

Athlon 64 FX-60

The Athlon 64 FX-60 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Toledo (2006) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: 939. Thermal design power (TDP): 110 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 1,205 points. Launch price was $149.

Core i3-380M

The Core i3-380M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 26 October 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Arrandale (2010−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.53 GHz, with boost up to 0.53 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,212 points. Launch price was $49.

⚡

Processing Power

The Athlon 64 FX-60 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, matching the Core i3-380M's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the Athlon 64 FX-60 versus 0.53 GHz on the Core i3-380M — a 132.3% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 FX-60. The Athlon 64 FX-60 uses the Toledo (2006) architecture (90 nm), while the Core i3-380M uses Arrandale (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 FX-60 scores 1,205 against the Core i3-380M's 1,212 — a 0.6% lead for the Core i3-380M. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 250 vs 450, a 57.1% lead for the Core i3-380M that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 480 vs 1,100 (78.5% advantage for the Core i3-380M). L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon 64 FX-60 vs 3 MB (total) on the Core i3-380M.

Feature	Athlon 64 FX-60	Core i3-380M
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 4
Boost Clock	2.6 GHz+391%	0.53 GHz
Base Clock	—	2.53 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	3 MB (total)
L2 Cache	2 MB	256K (per core)+12700%
Process	90 nm	32 nm-64%
Architecture	Toledo (2006)	Arrandale (2010−2011)
PassMark	1,205	1,212
Geekbench 6 Single	250	450+80%
Geekbench 6 Multi	480	1,100+129%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 64 FX-60 uses the 939 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Core i3-380M uses PGA988 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR-400 on the Athlon 64 FX-60 versus DDR3-1066 on the Core i3-380M — the Core i3-380M supports -366.5% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core i3-380M supports up to 8 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Athlon 64 FX-60) vs 16 (Core i3-380M) — the Core i3-380M offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: nForce4,K8T890 (Athlon 64 FX-60) and HM55,HM57,QM57 (Core i3-380M).

Feature	Athlon 64 FX-60	Core i3-380M
Socket	939	PGA988
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 2.0+82%
Max RAM Speed	DDR-400	DDR3-1066
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	8 GB+100%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Athlon 64 FX-60 has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Virtualization support: None (Athlon 64 FX-60) vs VT-x (Core i3-380M). The Core i3-380M includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Gen 1)), while the Athlon 64 FX-60 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Athlon 64 FX-60 targets Gaming/Enthusiast, Core i3-380M targets Legacy Laptop. Direct competitor: Core i3-380M rivals AMD Athlon II P320.

Feature	Athlon 64 FX-60	Core i3-380M
Integrated GPU	No	Yes
IGPU Model	—	Intel HD Graphics (Gen 1)
Unlocked	Yes	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	None	VT-x
Target Use	Gaming/Enthusiast	Legacy Laptop

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Athlon 64 FX-60 was priced at $1031, while the Core i3-380M came in at $49. On launch pricing ($1031 vs $49), Core i3-380M was $982 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 FX-60 delivers 1.2 pts/$ vs 24.7 pts/$ for the Core i3-380M — making the Core i3-380M the 182% better value option.

Feature	Athlon 64 FX-60	Core i3-380M
MSRP	$1031	$49-95%
Performance per Dollar	1.2	24.7+1958%
Release Date	2006	2010

Search Athlon 64 FX-60 on Amazon

Search Core i3-380M 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.