Atom Z2480 vs Athlon 64 3000+
Primary details
Comparing Athlon 64 3000+ and Atom Z2480 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3218 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Power efficiency | 0.22 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Clawhammer (2001−2005) | Penwell (2012−2013) |
| Release date | January 2001 (23 years ago) | 1 January 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $65 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Athlon 64 3000+ and Atom Z2480 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 1 (Single-Core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 1.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2 GHz | 2 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 193 mm2 | 65 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 90 °C |
| Number of transistors | 154 million | 140 million |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon 64 3000+ and Atom Z2480 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | 754 | FC-MB4617 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 89 Watt | 3 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 64 3000+ and Atom Z2480. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE, Intel® SSE2, Intel® SSE3 |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| PAE | no data | 32 Bit |
| GPIO | no data | 152 |
Security technologies
Athlon 64 3000+ and Atom Z2480 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon 64 3000+ and Atom Z2480. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR2 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 2 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 6.4 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | PowerVR SGX540 (400 MHz) |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Athlon 64 3000+ and Atom Z2480 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 2 |
| HDMI | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon 64 3000+ and Atom Z2480.
| USB revision | no data | 2.0 OTG |
| Number of USB ports | no data | 1 |
| UART | no data | 3 |
Pros & cons summary
| Threads | 1 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 89 Watt | 3 Watt |
Atom Z2480 has 100% more threads, a 306.3% more advanced lithography process, and 2866.7% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Athlon 64 3000+ and Atom Z2480. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Athlon 64 3000+ is a desktop processor while Atom Z2480 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 64 3000+ and Atom Z2480, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
