Athlon II Neo K145 vs Mobile Athlon 64 3400+

Athlon II Neo K145 vs Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ Performance Spectrum

Athlon II Neo K145

1 / 1

565

+3.7%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Mobile Athlon 64 3400+

1 / 1

545

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 II Neo K145 vs Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ 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 K145 vs Mobile Athlon 64 3400+: 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 K145

2010

Why buy it

✅+3.7% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $50 MSRP, while Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Mobile Athlon 64 3400+

2005

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (545 vs 565).

Quick Answers

So, is Athlon II Neo K145 better than Mobile Athlon 64 3400+?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ is ahead with a 0.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Athlon II Neo K145 pulls ahead with 3.7% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Athlon II Neo K145 is the stronger fit. You are getting 3.7% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Athlon II Neo K145 is the better buy right now. Athlon II Neo K145 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $50 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 3.7% better PassMark. The compromise is that Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 0.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (11.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Athlon II Neo K145 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2010 vs 2005) and more multi-core headroom with 1 cores / 1 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 K145 vs Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ Technical Specifications

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

Athlon II Neo K145

The Athlon II Neo K145 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Nile (2010) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.8 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: 565 points. Launch price was $149.

Mobile Athlon 64 3400+

The Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Agosto 2005 (20 years ago). It is based on the Clawhammer (2001−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.2 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Socket: 754. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Memory support: DDR1. Passmark benchmark score: 545 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Athlon II Neo K145 and Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.8 GHz on the Athlon II Neo K145 versus 2.2 GHz on the Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ — a 20% clock advantage for the Mobile Athlon 64 3400+. The Athlon II Neo K145 uses the Nile (2010) architecture (45 nm), while the Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ uses Clawhammer (2001−2005). In PassMark, the Athlon II Neo K145 scores 565 against the Mobile Athlon 64 3400+'s 545 — a 3.6% lead for the Athlon II Neo K145.

Feature	Athlon II Neo K145	Mobile Athlon 64 3400+
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1.8 GHz	2.2 GHz+22%
L2 Cache	1 MB	1 MB
Process	45 nm	—
Architecture	Nile (2010)	Clawhammer (2001−2005)
PassMark	565+4%	545

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon II Neo K145 uses the S1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ uses 754 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1066 on the Athlon II Neo K145 versus 400 on the Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ — the Athlon II Neo K145 supports 166.5% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Athlon II Neo K145 supports up to 4 GB of RAM compared to 2 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Athlon II Neo K145) vs 1 (Mobile Athlon 64 3400+). Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: AMD ASB2 (Athlon II Neo K145) and 754 (Mobile Athlon 64 3400+).

Feature	Athlon II Neo K145	Mobile Athlon 64 3400+
Socket	S1	754
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0+82%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1066+167%	400
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB+100%	2 GB
RAM Channels	2+100%	1
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Athlon II Neo K145) / false (Mobile Athlon 64 3400+). Direct competitor: Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ rivals Pentium M 735.