Athlon II Neo K125 vs Core i3-380UM

Athlon II Neo K125 vs Core i3-380UM Performance Spectrum

Athlon II Neo K125

1 / 1

1,491

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Core i3-380UM

2 / 4

1,502

+0.7%

Pentium U5600

Celeron 1019Y

Core i3-370M

Pentium Dual Core T4500

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 II Neo K125 vs Core i3-380UM 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 II Neo K125 vs Core i3-380UM: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Athlon II Neo K125

2010

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 512W, a 511W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,491 vs 1,502).
❌Launch MSRP is still $100 MSRP, while Core i3-380UM mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i3-380UM can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core i3-380UM

2010

Why buy it

✅+0.7% higher PassMark.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics, while Athlon II Neo K125 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌51100% higher power demand at 512W vs 1W.

Quick Answers

So, is Athlon II Neo K125 better than Core i3-380UM?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Athlon II Neo K125 is ahead with a 1.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Core i3-380UM pulls ahead with 0.7% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i3-380UM is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.7% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

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

Athlon II Neo K125 is the better buy right now. Athlon II Neo K125 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $100 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Core i3-380UM is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 0.7% better PassMark. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (14.9 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Core i3-380UM makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 4 threads instead of 1/1. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Athlon II Neo K125 vs Core i3-380UM Technical Specifications

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

Athlon II Neo K125

The Athlon II Neo K125 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Geneva (2010) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.7 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: S1. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,491 points. Launch price was $149.

Core i3-380UM

The Core i3-380UM is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 October 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Arrandale (2010−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.33 GHz, with boost up to 0.03 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1288. Thermal design power (TDP): 18 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,502 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Athlon II Neo K125 packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Core i3-380UM offers 2 cores / 4 threads — the Core i3-380UM has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 1.7 GHz on the Athlon II Neo K125 versus 0.03 GHz on the Core i3-380UM — a 193.1% clock advantage for the Athlon II Neo K125. The Athlon II Neo K125 uses the Geneva (2010) architecture (45 nm), while the Core i3-380UM uses Arrandale (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon II Neo K125 scores 1,491 against the Core i3-380UM's 1,502 — a 0.7% lead for the Core i3-380UM.

Feature	Athlon II Neo K125	Core i3-380UM
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	2 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	1.7 GHz+5567%	0.03 GHz
Base Clock	—	1.33 GHz
L3 Cache	—	3 MB
L2 Cache	1 MB+100%	512 kB
Process	45 nm	32 nm-29%
Architecture	Geneva (2010)	Arrandale (2010−2011)
PassMark	1,491	1,502
Geekbench 6 Single	—	199
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	451

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon II Neo K125 uses the S1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Core i3-380UM uses BGA1288 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3-800 memory speed. The Core i3-380UM 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 II Neo K125) vs 16 (Core i3-380UM) — the Core i3-380UM offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD ASB2 (Athlon II Neo K125) and HM55,HM57,QM57 (Core i3-380UM).

Feature	Athlon II Neo K125	Core i3-380UM
Socket	S1	BGA1288
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-800	DDR3-800
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	8 GB+100%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Athlon II Neo K125) / No (Core i3-380UM). The Core i3-380UM includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics), while the Athlon II Neo K125 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i3-380UM targets Budget. Direct competitor: Core i3-380UM rivals Athlon Silver 3050U.