Atom E3825 vs Mobile Athlon 64 3200+

Atom E3825 vs Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ Performance Spectrum

Atom E3825

2 / 2

525

+4.0%

Mobile Athlon 64 3200+

1 / 1

505

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.

Atom E3825 vs Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ 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.

Atom E3825 vs Mobile Athlon 64 3200+: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Atom E3825

2013

Why buy it

✅+4% higher PassMark.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail), while Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌500% higher power demand at 6W vs 1W.

Mobile Athlon 64 3200+

2003

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 6W, a 5W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (505 vs 525).
❌No integrated graphics, while Atom E3825 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Atom E3825 better than Mobile Athlon 64 3200+?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ 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, Atom E3825 pulls ahead with 4% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Atom E3825 is the stronger fit. You are getting 4% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Atom E3825 still makes the most sense overall. Atom E3825 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 4% better PassMark.

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

Atom E3825 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2003) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 1/1. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Atom E3825 vs Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ Technical Specifications

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

Atom E3825

The Atom E3825 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 8 October 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Bay Trail-I (2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.33 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 525 points. Launch price was $73.

Mobile Athlon 64 3200+

The Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Agosto 2003 (22 years ago). It is based on the Newark (2003) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Socket: 754. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Memory support: DDR1. Passmark benchmark score: 505 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom E3825 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ offers 1 cores / 1 threads — the Atom E3825 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 1.33 GHz on the Atom E3825 versus 2 GHz on the Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ — a 40.2% clock advantage for the Mobile Athlon 64 3200+. The Atom E3825 uses the Bay Trail-I (2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ uses Newark (2003). In PassMark, the Atom E3825 scores 525 against the Mobile Athlon 64 3200+'s 505 — a 3.9% lead for the Atom E3825.

Feature	Atom E3825	Mobile Athlon 64 3200+
Cores / Threads	2 / 2+100%	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1.33 GHz	2 GHz+50%
L3 Cache	0 kB	—
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)	1 MB+100%
Process	22 nm	—
Architecture	Bay Trail-I (2013)	Newark (2003)
PassMark	525+4%	505

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom E3825 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ uses 754 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3L-1066 on the Atom E3825 versus 400 on the Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ — the Atom E3825 supports 166.5% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Atom E3825 supports up to 8 GB of RAM compared to 2 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 1-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 4 (Atom E3825) vs 0 (Mobile Athlon 64 3200+) — the Atom E3825 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel FCBGA1170 (Atom E3825) and 754 (Mobile Athlon 64 3200+).

Feature	Atom E3825	Mobile Athlon 64 3200+
Socket	FCBGA1170	754
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0+82%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1066+167%	400
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB+300%	2 GB
RAM Channels	1	1
ECC Support	Yes	No
PCIe Lanes	4	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Atom E3825) / false (Mobile Athlon 64 3200+). The Atom E3825 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)), while the Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ rivals Pentium M 735.