Ryzen 3 3200G vs Athlon 64 X2 6000+

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Athlon 64 X2 6000+
2007
2 cores / 2 threads, 125 Watt
0.61
Ryzen 3 3200G
2019
4 cores / 4 threads, 65 Watt
4.62
+657%

Ryzen 3 3200G outperforms Athlon 64 X2 6000+ by a whopping 657% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Athlon 64 X2 6000+ and Ryzen 3 3200G processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking27701289
Place by popularitynot in top-10031
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data8.90
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Seriesno dataAMD Ryzen 3
Architecture codenameWindsor (2006−2007)Picasso (2019−2022)
Release dateAugust 2007 (17 years ago)7 July 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Athlon 64 X2 6000+ and Ryzen 3 3200G 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 cores2 (Dual-core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads24
Base clock speedno data3.6 GHz
Boost clock speed3.1 GHz4 GHz
Bus typeno dataPCIe 3.0
Multiplierno data36
L1 cache256 KB96 KB (per core)
L2 cache512K512 KB (per core)
L3 cache0 KB4 MB (shared)
Chip lithography90 nm12 nm
Die size220 mm2210 mm2
Number of transistors227 million4,940 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on Athlon 64 X2 6000+ and Ryzen 3 3200G 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 (Uniprocessor)
SocketAM2AM4
Power consumption (TDP)125 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 64 X2 6000+ and Ryzen 3 3200G. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI-+
AVX-+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon 64 X2 6000+ and Ryzen 3 3200G are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon 64 X2 6000+ and Ryzen 3 3200G. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR4 Dual-channel
Maximum memory sizeno data64 GB
Max memory channelsno data2
Maximum memory bandwidthno data46.933 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon 64 X2 6000+ and Ryzen 3 3200G.

PCIe versionno data3.0
PCI Express lanesno data20

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 X2 6000+ 0.61
Ryzen 3 3200G 4.62
+657%

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 X2 6000+ 934
Ryzen 3 3200G 7129
+663%

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Athlon 64 X2 6000+ 242
Ryzen 3 3200G 1075
+344%

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Athlon 64 X2 6000+ 421
Ryzen 3 3200G 3058
+626%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.61 4.62
Physical cores 2 4
Threads 2 4
Chip lithography 90 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 125 Watt 65 Watt

Ryzen 3 3200G has a 657.4% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 650% more advanced lithography process, and 92.3% lower power consumption.

The Ryzen 3 3200G is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 64 X2 6000+ and Ryzen 3 3200G, 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 X2 6000+
Athlon 64 X2 6000+
AMD Ryzen 3 3200G
Ryzen 3 3200G

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.


3.5 308 votes

Rate Athlon 64 X2 6000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 3023 votes

Rate Ryzen 3 3200G on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Athlon 64 X2 6000+ or Ryzen 3 3200G, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.