Athlon 3000G vs Atom N435
Aggregate performance score
Athlon 3000G outperforms Atom N435 by a whopping 2680% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3519 | 1810 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 5.27 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Atom | AMD Athlon |
| Power efficiency | 1.92 | 7.62 |
| Designer | Intel | AMD |
| Architecture codename | Pinetrail (2009−2011) | Zen+ (2018−2019) |
| Release date | 2 June 2011 (13 years ago) | 21 November 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $49 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Atom N435 and Athlon 3000G 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) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.33 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Bus rate | 533 MHz | no data |
| Multiplier | no data | 35 |
| L1 cache | no data | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 4 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | no data | 209.78 mm2? |
| Number of transistors | no data | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Atom N435 and Athlon 3000G 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 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FCBGA559 | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 5 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Atom N435 and Athlon 3000G. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| PowerNow | - | + |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Atom N435 and Athlon 3000G are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Atom N435 and Athlon 3000G. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR2, DDR3 | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 64 GB? |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 42.671 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon Vega 3 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Atom N435 and Athlon 3000G.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 6 |
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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.10 | 2.78 |
| Recency | 2 June 2011 | 21 November 2019 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 2 |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 5 Watt | 35 Watt |
Atom N435 has 600% lower power consumption.
Athlon 3000G, on the other hand, has a 2680% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 221.4% more advanced lithography process.
The AMD Athlon 3000G is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Atom N435 in performance tests.
Be aware that Atom N435 is a notebook processor while Athlon 3000G is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
