Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ vs Opteron 142

Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ vs Opteron 142 Performance Spectrum

Mobile Athlon 64 3000+

1 / 1

450

+1.1%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Opteron 142

1 / 1

445

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.

Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ vs Opteron 142 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.

Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ vs Opteron 142: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Mobile Athlon 64 3000+

2003

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌502.4% higher power demand at 512W vs 85W.

Opteron 142

2003

Why buy it

✅Draws 85W instead of 512W, a 427W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (445 vs 450).
❌Launch MSRP is still $292 MSRP, while Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Quick Answers

So, is Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ better than Opteron 142?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Opteron 142 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.2% 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 3000+ is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.1% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ is still the faster CPU overall, but Opteron 142 is easier to justify if budget matters more than peak performance. Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $292 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Opteron 142 is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (1.5 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), which is why it can still make sense for tighter-budget builds on paper.

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

Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more multi-core headroom with 1 cores / 1 threads instead of 1/1. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ vs Opteron 142 Technical Specifications

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

Mobile Athlon 64 3000+

The Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Agosto 2003 (22 years ago). It is based on the Oakville (2003−2004) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2 GHz. L2 cache: 512K. Socket: 754. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB. Memory support: DDR1. Passmark benchmark score: 450 points. Launch price was $69.

Opteron 142

The Opteron 142 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the SledgeHammer (2003−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 940. Thermal design power (TDP): 85 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 445 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ and Opteron 142 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ versus 1.6 GHz on the Opteron 142 — a 22.2% clock advantage for the Mobile Athlon 64 3000+. The Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ uses the Oakville (2003−2004) architecture, while the Opteron 142 uses SledgeHammer (2003−2005) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ scores 450 against the Opteron 142's 445 — a 1.1% lead for the Mobile Athlon 64 3000+.

Feature	Mobile Athlon 64 3000+	Opteron 142
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2 GHz+25%	1.6 GHz
L3 Cache	—	0 kB
L2 Cache	512K+51100%	1 MB
Process	—	130 nm
Architecture	Oakville (2003−2004)	SledgeHammer (2003−2005)
PassMark	450+1%	445

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ uses the 754 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Opteron 142 uses 940 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 400 on the Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ versus DDR-333 on the Opteron 142 — the Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ supports -220.1% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Opteron 142 supports up to 8 GB of RAM compared to 2 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (Mobile Athlon 64 3000+) vs 2 (Opteron 142). Both provide 0 PCIe lanes.

Feature	Mobile Athlon 64 3000+	Opteron 142
Socket	754	940
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 2.0+82%
Max RAM Speed	400	DDR-333
Max RAM Capacity	2 GB	8 GB+300%
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	0	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: false (Mobile Athlon 64 3000+) vs AMD-V (Opteron 142). Primary use case: Opteron 142 targets Server. Direct competitor: Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ rivals Pentium M 735.