Athlon 64 X2 3800+ vs Athlon II M300
Primary details
Comparing Athlon II M300 and Athlon 64 X2 3800+ processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD Athlon II | no data |
| Architecture codename | Caspian (2009) | Manchester (2005−2006) |
| Release date | 10 September 2009 (15 years ago) | August 2005 (19 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Athlon II M300 and Athlon 64 X2 3800+ 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 2 |
| Boost clock speed | 2 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 3200 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 256K |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 90 nm |
| Die size | no data | 220 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 154 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon II M300 and Athlon 64 X2 3800+ 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 | no data | 1 |
| Socket | Socket S1 (S1g3) | 939 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 89 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon II M300 and Athlon 64 X2 3800+. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, Enhanced 3DNow!, NX bit, AMD64, PowerNow!, AMD Virtualization | no data |
| PowerNow | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon II M300 and Athlon 64 X2 3800+. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR2 | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 89 Watt |
Athlon II M300 has a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 154.3% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Athlon II M300 and Athlon 64 X2 3800+. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Athlon II M300 is a notebook processor while Athlon 64 X2 3800+ is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon II M300 and Athlon 64 X2 3800+, 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.
