Athlon XP 3000+ vs Athlon 64 3700+

VS

Aggregate performance score

Athlon 64 3700+
2001
1 core / 1 thread, 89 Watt
0.25
+56.3%
Athlon XP 3000+
2001
1 core / 1 thread, 68 Watt
0.16

Athlon 64 3700+ outperforms Athlon XP 3000+ by an impressive 56% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Athlon 64 3700+ and Athlon XP 3000+ processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking31693288
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Power efficiency0.270.22
Architecture codenameSan Diego (2001−2005)Barton (2001−2004)
Release dateJanuary 2001 (23 years ago)January 2001 (23 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$69$78

Detailed specifications

Athlon 64 3700+ and Athlon XP 3000+ 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 cores1 (Single-Core)1 (Single-Core)
Threads11
Boost clock speed2.4 GHz2.17 GHz
L1 cache128 KB128 KB
L2 cache1 MB512 KB
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography130 nm130 nm
Die size199 mm2101 mm2
Number of transistors233 million63 million
64 bit support+-
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Athlon 64 3700+ and Athlon XP 3000+ 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 configuration11
Socket939A
Power consumption (TDP)89 Watt68 Watt

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Athlon 64 3700+ 0.25
+56.3%
Athlon XP 3000+ 0.16

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

Athlon 64 3700+ 394
+50.4%
Athlon XP 3000+ 262

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.25 0.16
Power consumption (TDP) 89 Watt 68 Watt

Athlon 64 3700+ has a 56.3% higher aggregate performance score.

Athlon XP 3000+, on the other hand, has 30.9% lower power consumption.

The Athlon 64 3700+ is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon XP 3000+ in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 64 3700+ and Athlon XP 3000+, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD Athlon 64 3700+
Athlon 64 3700+
AMD Athlon XP 3000+
Athlon XP 3000+

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


2.5 8 votes

Rate Athlon 64 3700 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 25 votes

Rate Athlon XP 3000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Athlon 64 3700+ or Athlon XP 3000+, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.