Athlon XP 1800+ vs Atom Z515

AMD

Athlon XP 1800+

1 Cores1 Thrd66 WWMax: 1.53 GHz2001
Similar parts
·······
VS
Intel

Atom Z515

1 Cores1 Thrd650 WWMax: 1.2 GHz2009
Similar parts
·······

Athlon XP 1800+ vs Atom Z515 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 XP 1800+ vs Atom Z515 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 XP 1800+ vs Atom Z515: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Athlon XP 1800+

2001

Why buy it

  • Better for gaming: +20.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
  • Draws 66W instead of 650W, a 584W reduction.
  • Includes a boxed cooler (Stock), unlike Atom Z515.

Trade-offs

  • Launch MSRP is still $252 MSRP, while Atom Z515 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Atom Z515

2009

Why buy it

    Trade-offs

    • Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Athlon XP 1800+ across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
    • Lower PassMark (195 vs 225).
    • 884.8% higher power demand at 650W vs 66W.
    • No boxed cooler included, unlike Athlon XP 1800+.

    Quick Answers

    So, is Athlon XP 1800+ better than Atom Z515?
    Yes. Athlon XP 1800+ is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 20.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 15.4% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.
    Which one is better for gaming?
    If gaming is the priority, Athlon XP 1800+ is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 20.0% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.
    Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
    For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Athlon XP 1800+ is the stronger fit. You are getting 15.4% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.
    Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
    Athlon XP 1800+ is the better buy right now. Athlon XP 1800+ comes in at an unclear MSRP at $252 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 20.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (0.9 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.
    Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
    Atom Z515 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2009 vs 2001). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

    Athlon XP 1800+ vs Atom Z515 Technical Specifications

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

    AMD

    Athlon XP 1800+

    The Athlon XP 1800+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Janeiro 2001 (24 years ago). It is based on the Thoroughbred (2001−2002) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.53 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 256 kB. Built on 180 nm process technology. Socket: A. Thermal design power (TDP): 66 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 225 points. Launch price was $59.

    Intel

    Atom Z515

    The Atom Z515 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 8 April 2009 (16 years ago). It is based on the Silverthorne (2008−2010) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Base frequency is 1.2 GHz, with boost up to 1.2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: PBGA441. Thermal design power (TDP): 1.4 Watt. Memory support: unknown. Passmark benchmark score: 195 points. Launch price was $69.

    Processing Power

    Both the Athlon XP 1800+ and Atom Z515 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.53 GHz on the Athlon XP 1800+ versus 1.2 GHz on the Atom Z515 — a 24.2% clock advantage for the Athlon XP 1800+. The Athlon XP 1800+ uses the Thoroughbred (2001−2002) architecture (180 nm), while the Atom Z515 uses Silverthorne (2008−2010) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon XP 1800+ scores 225 against the Atom Z515's 195 — a 14.3% lead for the Athlon XP 1800+. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

    FeatureAthlon XP 1800+Atom Z515
    Cores / Threads
    1 / 1
    1 / 1
    Boost Clock
    1.53 GHz+28%
    1.2 GHz
    Base Clock
    1.2 GHz
    L3 Cache
    0 kB
    0 kB
    L2 Cache
    256 kB
    512 kB (per core)+100%
    Process
    180 nm
    45 nm-75%
    Architecture
    Thoroughbred (2001−2002)
    Silverthorne (2008−2010)
    PassMark
    225+15%
    195
    Geekbench 6 Single
    180
    Geekbench 6 Multi
    651
    🧠

    Memory & Platform

    The Athlon XP 1800+ uses the A socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Atom Z515 uses PBGA441 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR1 on the Athlon XP 1800+ versus DDR2-533 on the Atom Z515 — the Atom Z515 supports 53200% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 2 GB of RAM. Both feature 1-channel memory with ECC support. Chipset compatibility: KT133,KT266,nForce2 (Athlon XP 1800+) and Intel US15W (Atom Z515).

    FeatureAthlon XP 1800+Atom Z515
    Socket
    A
    PBGA441
    PCIe Generation
    PCIe 1.1
    PCIe 2.0+82%
    Max RAM Speed
    DDR1
    DDR2-533+53200%
    Max RAM Capacity
    2 GB
    2 GB
    RAM Channels
    1
    1
    ECC Support
    No
    No
    PCIe Lanes
    0
    🔧

    Advanced Features

    Virtualization: No (Athlon XP 1800+) / not specified (Atom Z515). Primary use case: Athlon XP 1800+ targets Budget. Direct competitor: Athlon XP 1800+ rivals Pentium D 830.

    FeatureAthlon XP 1800+Atom Z515
    Integrated GPU
    No
    No
    Unlocked
    No
    AVX-512
    No
    Virtualization
    No
    Target Use
    Budget