Atom E3825 vs Turion 64 ML-34

Atom E3825 vs Turion 64 ML-34 Performance Spectrum

Atom E3825

2 / 2

525

+1.9%

515

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 Turion 64 ML-34 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 Turion 64 ML-34: 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

✅+1.9% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 6W instead of 35W, a 29W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail), while Turion 64 ML-34 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

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

Turion 64 ML-34

2005

Why buy it

✅300% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (515 vs 525).
❌483.3% higher power demand at 35W vs 6W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Atom E3825 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Atom E3825 better than Turion 64 ML-34?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Turion 64 ML-34 is ahead with 35.3% higher max boost clock. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Atom E3825 pulls ahead with 1.9% 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 1.9% 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 1.9% 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 2005) 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 Turion 64 ML-34 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.

Turion 64 ML-34

The Turion 64 ML-34 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Lancaster (2005−2006) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.8 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: 754. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR1. Passmark benchmark score: 515 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom E3825 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Turion 64 ML-34 offers 1 cores / 1 threads — the Atom E3825 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 1.33 GHz on the Atom E3825 versus 1.8 GHz on the Turion 64 ML-34 — a 30% clock advantage for the Turion 64 ML-34. The Atom E3825 uses the Bay Trail-I (2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Turion 64 ML-34 uses Lancaster (2005−2006) (90 nm). In PassMark, the Atom E3825 scores 525 against the Turion 64 ML-34's 515 — a 1.9% lead for the Atom E3825. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Atom E3825	Turion 64 ML-34
Cores / Threads	2 / 2+100%	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1.33 GHz	1.8 GHz+35%
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)	1 MB+100%
Process	22 nm-76%	90 nm
Architecture	Bay Trail-I (2013)	Lancaster (2005−2006)
PassMark	525+2%	515

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom E3825 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Turion 64 ML-34 uses 754 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3L-1066 on the Atom E3825 versus DDR-400 on the Turion 64 ML-34 — the Atom E3825 supports -366.5% 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 16 (Turion 64 ML-34) — the Turion 64 ML-34 offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	Atom E3825	Turion 64 ML-34
Socket	FCBGA1170	754
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1066	DDR-400
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB+300%	2 GB
RAM Channels	1	1
ECC Support	Yes	No
PCIe Lanes	4	16+300%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Atom E3825) / AMD-V (Turion 64 ML-34). The Atom E3825 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)), while the Turion 64 ML-34 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Turion 64 ML-34 targets Mobile.