Athlon 64 X2 3600+ vs Atom C3338

Athlon 64 X2 3600+ vs Atom C3338 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 X2 3600+

2 / 2

1,020

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Atom C3338

2 / 2

1,028

+0.8%

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 X2 3600+ vs Atom C3338 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 X2 3600+ vs Atom C3338: 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 X2 3600+

2005

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,020 vs 1,028).
❌Launch MSRP is still $150 MSRP, while Atom C3338 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌888.9% higher power demand at 89W vs 9W.

Atom C3338

2017

Why buy it

✅Draws 9W instead of 89W, a 80W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (10 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

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

Quick Answers

So, is Atom C3338 better than Athlon 64 X2 3600+?

Yes. Atom C3338 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.8% 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 C3338 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.9% 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 C3338 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.8% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Atom C3338 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Atom C3338 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $150 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Athlon 64 X2 3600+ only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2005 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (6.8 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 C3338 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2017 vs 2005) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 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 X2 3600+ vs Atom C3338 Technical Specifications

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

Athlon 64 X2 3600+

The Athlon 64 X2 3600+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Manchester (2005−2006) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: 939. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Memory support: DDR1. Passmark benchmark score: 1,020 points. Launch price was $149.

Atom C3338

The Atom C3338 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 22 February 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Goldmont (2016−2017) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.5 GHz, with boost up to 2.2 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB. L2 cache: 4 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1310. Thermal design power (TDP): 8.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR4: 1866. Passmark benchmark score: 1,028 points. Launch price was $27.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Athlon 64 X2 3600+ and Atom C3338 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Athlon 64 X2 3600+ versus 2.2 GHz on the Atom C3338 — a 9.5% clock advantage for the Atom C3338. The Athlon 64 X2 3600+ uses the Manchester (2005−2006) architecture (90 nm), while the Atom C3338 uses Goldmont (2016−2017) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 X2 3600+ scores 1,020 against the Atom C3338's 1,028 — a 0.8% lead for the Atom C3338. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon 64 X2 3600+ vs 4 MB on the Atom C3338.

Feature	Athlon 64 X2 3600+	Atom C3338
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2 GHz	2.2 GHz+10%
Base Clock	—	1.5 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	4 MB
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	4 MB+1500%
Process	90 nm	14 nm-84%
Architecture	Manchester (2005−2006)	Goldmont (2016−2017)
PassMark	1,020	1,028

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 64 X2 3600+ uses the 939 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Atom C3338 uses FCBGA1310 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-800 on the Athlon 64 X2 3600+ versus DDR4-1866 on the Atom C3338 — the Atom C3338 supports 133.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Atom C3338 supports up to 128 GB of RAM compared to 16 GB — 700% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Athlon 64 X2 3600+) vs 1 (Atom C3338). PCIe lanes: 0 (Athlon 64 X2 3600+) vs 10 (Atom C3338) — the Atom C3338 offers 10 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD AM2 (Athlon 64 X2 3600+) and Intel FCBGA1310 (Atom C3338).

Feature	Athlon 64 X2 3600+	Atom C3338
Socket	939	FCBGA1310
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 3.0+173%
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-800	DDR4-1866+133%
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	128 GB+700%
RAM Channels	2+100%	1
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	0	10