Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ vs Turion 64 ML-30

Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ vs Turion 64 ML-30 Performance Spectrum

Mobile Athlon 64 3000+

1 / 1

450

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Turion 64 ML-30

1 / 1

475

+5.6%

Athlon XP 2100+

Athlon XP 2400+

Athlon XP 2700+

Mobile Athlon 64 2800+

Ryzen 5 8640HS

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 Turion 64 ML-30 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 Turion 64 ML-30: 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

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Turion 64 ML-30 across 47 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (450 vs 475).
❌51100% higher power demand at 512W vs 1W.

Turion 64 ML-30

2005

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +8.5% higher average FPS across 47 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 1W instead of 512W, a 511W reduction.

Trade-offs

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

Quick Answers

So, is Turion 64 ML-30 better than Mobile Athlon 64 3000+?

Yes. Turion 64 ML-30 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 8.5% average FPS lead across 47 shared CPU game tests in our data, 5.6% 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, Turion 64 ML-30 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 8.5% more average FPS across 47 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Turion 64 ML-30 is the stronger fit. You are getting 5.6% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Turion 64 ML-30 still makes the most sense overall. Turion 64 ML-30 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 8.5% average FPS lead across 47 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Turion 64 ML-30 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2005 vs 2003) and 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 Turion 64 ML-30 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.

Turion 64 ML-30

The Turion 64 ML-30 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: 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: 754. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 475 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ and Turion 64 ML-30 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 Turion 64 ML-30 — a 22.2% clock advantage for the Mobile Athlon 64 3000+. The Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ uses the Oakville (2003−2004) architecture, while the Turion 64 ML-30 uses Lancaster (2005−2006) (90 nm). In PassMark, the Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ scores 450 against the Turion 64 ML-30's 475 — a 5.4% lead for the Turion 64 ML-30.

Feature	Mobile Athlon 64 3000+	Turion 64 ML-30
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	—	90 nm
Architecture	Oakville (2003−2004)	Lancaster (2005−2006)
PassMark	450	475+6%

🧠

Memory & Platform

Both processors use the 754 socket with PCIe 1.1.

Feature	Mobile Athlon 64 3000+	Turion 64 ML-30
Socket	754	754
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 2.0+82%
Max RAM Speed	400	—
Max RAM Capacity	2	—
RAM Channels	1	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	0	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: false (Mobile Athlon 64 3000+) / not specified (Turion 64 ML-30). Direct competitor: Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ rivals Pentium M 735.