Atom x5-E3930 vs E-300

Atom x5-E3930 vs E-300 Performance Spectrum

Atom x5-E3930

2 / 2

1,185

+0.8%

1,176

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 x5-E3930 vs E-300 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 x5-E3930 vs E-300: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Atom x5-E3930

2016

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 7W instead of 18W, a 12W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

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

E-300

2011

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Atom x5-E3930 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (1,176 vs 1,185).
❌Launch MSRP is still $60 MSRP, while Atom x5-E3930 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌176.9% higher power demand at 18W vs 6.5W.

Quick Answers

So, is Atom x5-E3930 better than E-300?

Yes. Atom x5-E3930 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 3.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.8% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Atom x5-E3930 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 3.4% 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, Atom x5-E3930 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.8% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Atom x5-E3930 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Atom x5-E3930 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $60 MSRP, and it still gives you a 3.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. E-300 only looks good on raw value math because it is a cheap legacy laptop chip, not because it is a real desktop gaming recommendation. It simply does not keep up in modern games, especially when the gap is already 3.4% in the shared gaming data.

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

Atom x5-E3930 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2016 vs 2011) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Atom x5-E3930 vs E-300 Technical Specifications

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

Atom x5-E3930

The Atom x5-E3930 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 30 August 2014 (11 years ago). It is based on the Apollo Lake (2014−2016) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.3 GHz, with boost up to 1.8 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB (total). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1296. Thermal design power (TDP): 7 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-1866. Passmark benchmark score: 1,185 points. Launch price was $69.

E-300

The E-300 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 22 August 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Zacate (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.3 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 40 nm process technology. Socket: FT1. Thermal design power (TDP): 18 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,176 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Atom x5-E3930 and E-300 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.8 GHz on the Atom x5-E3930 versus 1.3 GHz on the E-300 — a 32.3% clock advantage for the Atom x5-E3930. The Atom x5-E3930 uses the Apollo Lake (2014−2016) architecture (14 nm), while the E-300 uses Zacate (2011−2013) (40 nm). In PassMark, the Atom x5-E3930 scores 1,185 against the E-300's 1,176 — a 0.8% lead for the Atom x5-E3930. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Atom x5-E3930	E-300
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.8 GHz+38%	1.3 GHz
Base Clock	1.3 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	2 MB (total)	512K (per core)+25500%
Process	14 nm-65%	40 nm
Architecture	Apollo Lake (2014−2016)	Zacate (2011−2013)
PassMark	1,185	1,176

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom x5-E3930 uses the FCBGA1296 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the E-300 uses FT1 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3L-1866 on the Atom x5-E3930 versus DDR3-1066 on the E-300 — the Atom x5-E3930 supports 75% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 8 GB of RAM. Memory channels: 2 (Atom x5-E3930) vs 1 (E-300). PCIe lanes: 4 (Atom x5-E3930) vs 0 (E-300) — the Atom x5-E3930 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	Atom x5-E3930	E-300
Socket	FCBGA1296	FT1
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1866+75%	DDR3-1066
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	8 GB
RAM Channels	2+100%	1
ECC Support	Yes	No
PCIe Lanes	4	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Atom x5-E3930) / AMD-V (E-300). Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics 500 (Atom x5-E3930) and Radeon HD 6310 (E-300) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: E-300 targets Budget Mobile.