
Athlon 64 X2 4000+

Atom x5-E3930
Athlon 64 X2 4000+ vs Atom x5-E3930 Performance Spectrum
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 4000+ vs Atom x5-E3930 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.

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Valorant

Among Us

Apex Legends

ARC Raiders

Call of Duty: Black Ops 6

Call of Duty: Warzone
Athlon 64 X2 4000+ vs Atom x5-E3930: 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 4000+
2006Why buy it
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Stock Cooler), unlike Atom x5-E3930.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Atom x5-E3930 across 47 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (1,175 vs 1,185).
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $328 MSRP, while Atom x5-E3930 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
- ❌1269.2% higher power demand at 89W vs 6.5W.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Atom x5-E3930 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Atom x5-E3930
2016Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +3.2% higher average FPS across 47 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Draws 7W instead of 89W, a 83W reduction.
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics 500, while Athlon 64 X2 4000+ needs a discrete GPU.
Trade-offs
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Athlon 64 X2 4000+.
Quick Answers
So, is Atom x5-E3930 better than Athlon 64 X2 4000+?
Which one is better for gaming?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Athlon 64 X2 4000+ vs Atom x5-E3930 Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Athlon 64 X2 4000+
The Athlon 64 X2 4000+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Windsor (2006−2007) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K. Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: AM2. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 1,175 points. Launch price was $149.

Atom x5-E3930
The Atom x5-E3930 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 30 August 2014 (11 years ago). It is based on the Apollo Lake (2014−2016) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.3 GHz, with boost up to 1.8 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB (total). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1296. Thermal design power (TDP): 7 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-1866. Passmark benchmark score: 1,185 points. Launch price was $69.
Processing Power
Both the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ and Atom x5-E3930 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ versus 1.8 GHz on the Atom x5-E3930 — a 10.5% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 X2 4000+. The Athlon 64 X2 4000+ uses the Windsor (2006−2007) architecture (90 nm), while the Atom x5-E3930 uses Apollo Lake (2014−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ scores 1,175 against the Atom x5-E3930's 1,185 — a 0.8% lead for the Atom x5-E3930. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.
| Feature | Athlon 64 X2 4000+ | Atom x5-E3930 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 2 GHz+11% | 1.8 GHz |
| Base Clock | — | 1.3 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 512K+25500% | 2 MB (total) |
| Process | 90 nm | 14 nm-84% |
| Architecture | Windsor (2006−2007) | Apollo Lake (2014−2016) |
| PassMark | 1,175 | 1,185 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 195 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 380 | — |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon 64 X2 4000+ uses the AM2 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Atom x5-E3930 uses FCBGA1296 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-800 on the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ versus DDR3L-1866 on the Atom x5-E3930 — the Atom x5-E3930 supports 133.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Atom x5-E3930 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 X2 4000+) vs 4 (Atom x5-E3930) — the Atom x5-E3930 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: nForce 500,AMD 690G (Athlon 64 X2 4000+) and Intel FCBGA1296 (Atom x5-E3930).
| Feature | Athlon 64 X2 4000+ | Atom x5-E3930 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | AM2 | FCBGA1296 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 3.0+173% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR2-800 | DDR3L-1866+133% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 4 GB | 8 GB+100% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | No | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 4 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: AMD-V (Athlon 64 X2 4000+) / not specified (Atom x5-E3930). The Atom x5-E3930 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics 500), while the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Athlon 64 X2 4000+ targets Legacy Desktop.
| Feature | Athlon 64 X2 4000+ | Atom x5-E3930 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | None | Intel HD Graphics 500 |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | AMD-V | — |
| Target Use | Legacy Desktop | — |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.















