Atom E3825 vs Mobile Athlon 64 3400+

Atom E3825 vs Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ Performance Spectrum

Atom E3825

2 / 2

525

0.0%

Mobile Athlon 64 3400+

1 / 1

545

+3.8%

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 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.

Atom E3825 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.

Atom E3825

2013

Why buy it

✅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 3400+ needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (525 vs 545).
❌500% higher power demand at 6W vs 1W.

Mobile Athlon 64 3400+

2005

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +7.9% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 1W instead of 6W, a 5W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No integrated graphics, while Atom E3825 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ better than Atom E3825?

Yes. Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 7.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 3.8% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 7.9% 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, Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ is the stronger fit. You are getting 3.8% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ still makes the most sense overall. Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 7.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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 2005). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Atom E3825 vs Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ 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 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

The Atom E3825 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ offers 1 cores / 1 threads — the Atom E3825 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 1.33 GHz on the Atom E3825 versus 2.2 GHz on the Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ — a 49.3% clock advantage for the Mobile Athlon 64 3400+. The Atom E3825 uses the Bay Trail-I (2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ uses Clawhammer (2001−2005). In PassMark, the Atom E3825 scores 525 against the Mobile Athlon 64 3400+'s 545 — a 3.7% lead for the Mobile Athlon 64 3400+.

Feature	Atom E3825	Mobile Athlon 64 3400+
Cores / Threads	2 / 2+100%	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1.33 GHz	2.2 GHz+65%
L3 Cache	0 kB	—
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)	1 MB+100%
Process	22 nm	—
Architecture	Bay Trail-I (2013)	Clawhammer (2001−2005)
PassMark	525	545+4%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom E3825 uses the FCBGA1170 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 DDR3L-1066 on the Atom E3825 versus 400 on the Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ — 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 3400+) — the Atom E3825 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel FCBGA1170 (Atom E3825) and 754 (Mobile Athlon 64 3400+).

Feature	Atom E3825	Mobile Athlon 64 3400+
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 3400+). The Atom E3825 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)), while the Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ rivals Pentium M 735.