Athlon II X3 425 vs E2-3000M

Athlon II X3 425 vs E2-3000M Performance Spectrum

Athlon II X3 425

3 / 3

1,595

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

E2-3000M

2 / 2

1,597

+0.1%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX

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 X3 425 vs E2-3000M 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 X3 425 vs E2-3000M: 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 X3 425

2009

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,595 vs 1,597).
❌Launch MSRP is still $79 MSRP, while E2-3000M mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌171.4% higher power demand at 95W vs 35W.

E2-3000M

2011

Why buy it

✅+0.1% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 35W instead of 95W, a 60W reduction.

Trade-offs

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

Quick Answers

So, is E2-3000M better than Athlon II X3 425?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Athlon II X3 425 is ahead with a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, E2-3000M pulls ahead with 0.1% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, E2-3000M is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

E2-3000M is still the much better call for a fresh build. E2-3000M comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $79 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.1% better PassMark. Athlon II X3 425 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2009 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (20.2 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on AM3.

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

E2-3000M makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2009) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 3/3. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Athlon II X3 425 vs E2-3000M Technical Specifications

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

Athlon II X3 425

The Athlon II X3 425 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 20 October 2009 (16 years ago). It is based on the Rana (2009−2011) architecture. It features 3 cores and 3 threads. Base frequency is 2.7 GHz, with boost up to 2.7 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: AM3. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,595 points. Launch price was $42.

E2-3000M

The E2-3000M is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Llano (2011−2012) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.8 GHz, with boost up to 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FS1. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,597 points. Launch price was $50.

⚡

Processing Power

The Athlon II X3 425 packs 3 cores / 3 threads, while the E2-3000M offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Athlon II X3 425 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.7 GHz on the Athlon II X3 425 versus 2.4 GHz on the E2-3000M — a 11.8% clock advantage for the Athlon II X3 425 (base: 2.7 GHz vs 1.8 GHz). The Athlon II X3 425 uses the Rana (2009−2011) architecture (45 nm), while the E2-3000M uses Llano (2011−2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon II X3 425 scores 1,595 against the E2-3000M's 1,597 — a 0.1% lead for the E2-3000M. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Athlon II X3 425	E2-3000M
Cores / Threads	3 / 3+50%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.7 GHz+13%	2.4 GHz
Base Clock	2.7 GHz+50%	1.8 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)	512K (per core)
Process	45 nm	32 nm-29%
Architecture	Rana (2009−2011)	Llano (2011−2012)
PassMark	1,595	1,597

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon II X3 425 uses the AM3 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the E2-3000M uses FS1 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.