Athlon X2 QL-64 vs E2-3000M

Athlon X2 QL-64 vs E2-3000M Performance Spectrum

Athlon X2 QL-64

2 / 2

1,614

+1.1%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

E2-3000M

2 / 2

1,597

0.0%

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 X2 QL-64 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 X2 QL-64 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 X2 QL-64

2009

Why buy it

✅+1.1% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 1W instead of 35W, a 34W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $50 MSRP, while E2-3000M mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

E2-3000M

2011

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,597 vs 1,614).
❌3400% higher power demand at 35W vs 1W.

Quick Answers

So, is Athlon X2 QL-64 better than E2-3000M?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, E2-3000M is ahead with a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Athlon X2 QL-64 pulls ahead with 1.1% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Athlon X2 QL-64 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Athlon X2 QL-64 is the better buy right now. Athlon X2 QL-64 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $50 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 1.1% better PassMark. The compromise is that E2-3000M is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (32.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

E2-3000M makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2009). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Athlon X2 QL-64 vs E2-3000M Technical Specifications

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

Athlon X2 QL-64

The Athlon X2 QL-64 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Lion (2008−2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2.1 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: S1. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,614 points. Launch price was $149.

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

Both the Athlon X2 QL-64 and E2-3000M share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.1 GHz on the Athlon X2 QL-64 versus 2.4 GHz on the E2-3000M — a 13.3% clock advantage for the E2-3000M. The Athlon X2 QL-64 uses the Lion (2008−2009) architecture (65 nm), while the E2-3000M uses Llano (2011−2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon X2 QL-64 scores 1,614 against the E2-3000M's 1,597 — a 1.1% lead for the Athlon X2 QL-64. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Athlon X2 QL-64	E2-3000M
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.1 GHz	2.4 GHz+14%
Base Clock	—	1.8 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB	512K (per core)+51100%
Process	65 nm	32 nm-51%
Architecture	Lion (2008−2009)	Llano (2011−2012)
PassMark	1,614+1%	1,597