Opteron 142 vs Athlon 64 3000+
Opteron 142
Athlon 64 3000+
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Opteron 142 is positioned at rank 1025 and the Athlon 64 3000+ is on rank 1095, so the Opteron 142 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Opteron 142
Performance Per Dollar Athlon 64 3000+
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Opteron 142 | Athlon 64 3000+ |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($20) | ✅ More affordable ($10) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (SledgeHammer (2003−2005) / 130 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Clawhammer (2001−2005) / 130 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Opteron 142 | Athlon 64 3000+ |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+102%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($20) | ✅ More affordable ($10) |
Performance Check
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Opteron 142 and Athlon 64 3000+
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.
Athlon 64 3000+
The Athlon 64 3000+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Janeiro 2001 (24 years ago). It is based on the Clawhammer (2001−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 754. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 450 points. Launch price was $65.
Processing Power
Both the Opteron 142 and Athlon 64 3000+ share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.6 GHz on the Opteron 142 versus 2 GHz on the Athlon 64 3000+ — a 22.2% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 3000+. The Opteron 142 uses the SledgeHammer (2003−2005) architecture (130 nm), while the Athlon 64 3000+ uses Clawhammer (2001−2005) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Opteron 142 scores 445 against the Athlon 64 3000+'s 450 — a 1.1% lead for the Athlon 64 3000+. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.
| Feature | Opteron 142 | Athlon 64 3000+ |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 1 / 1 | 1 / 1 |
| Boost Clock | 1.6 GHz | 2 GHz+25% |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 512K |
| Process | 130 nm | 130 nm |
| Architecture | SledgeHammer (2003−2005) | Clawhammer (2001−2005) |
| PassMark | 445 | 450+1% |
Memory & Platform
The Opteron 142 uses the 940 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Athlon 64 3000+ uses 754 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR-333 on the Opteron 142 versus DDR-400 on the Athlon 64 3000+ — the Opteron 142 supports -18.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Opteron 142 supports up to 8 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 0 PCIe lanes.
| Feature | Opteron 142 | Athlon 64 3000+ |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | 940 | 754 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0+82% | PCIe 1.1 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR-333 | DDR-400 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 8 GB+100% | 4 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ✅ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: AMD-V (Opteron 142) / not specified (Athlon 64 3000+). Primary use case: Opteron 142 targets Server.
| Feature | Opteron 142 | Athlon 64 3000+ |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | AMD-V | — |
| Target Use | Server | — |
Value Analysis
The Opteron 142 launched at $292 MSRP, while the Athlon 64 3000+ debuted at $149. At current prices ($20 vs $10), the Athlon 64 3000+ is $10 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Opteron 142 delivers 22.3 pts/$ vs 45.0 pts/$ for the Athlon 64 3000+ — making the Athlon 64 3000+ the 67.7% better value option.
| Feature | Opteron 142 | Athlon 64 3000+ |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $292 | $149-49% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $20 | $10-50% |
| Performance per Dollar | 22.3 | 45.0+102% |
| Release Date | 2003 | 2001 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Opteron 142 and Athlon 64 3000+
