Mobile Athlon 64 2800+ vs Mobile Athlon 64 3000+

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Mobile Athlon 64 3000+
2003
1 core / 1 thread, 35 Watt
0.26
+4%
Mobile Athlon 64 2800+
2004
1 core / 1 thread, 35 Watt
0.25

Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ outperforms Mobile Athlon 64 2800+ by a minimal 4% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking33733378
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesMobile Athlon 64Mobile Athlon 64
Power efficiency0.310.30
DesignerAMDAMD
Architecture codenameOakville (2003−2004)Oakville (2003−2004)
Release dateAugust 2003 (22 years ago)August 2004 (21 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ and Mobile Athlon 64 2800+ 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 GHz1.8 GHz
Bus rate800 MHz800 MHz
L1 cache128K128K
L2 cache512K512K
Die size193 mm2193 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data95 °C
Number of transistors106 million106 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ and Mobile Athlon 64 2800+ 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
Socket754754
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt35 Watt

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ and Mobile Athlon 64 2800+. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1DDR1

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ 0.26
+4%
Mobile Athlon 64 2800+ 0.25

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.

Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ 450
+2.3%
Mobile Athlon 64 2800+ 440

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.26 0.25

Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ has a 4% higher aggregate performance score.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between AMD Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ and AMD Mobile Athlon 64 2800+.

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 Mobile Athlon 64 3000+
Mobile Athlon 64 3000+
AMD Mobile Athlon 64 2800+
Mobile Athlon 64 2800+

Other comparisons

We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.

Community ratings

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


4 1 vote

Rate Mobile Athlon 64 3000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

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

Rate Mobile Athlon 64 2800 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about processors Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ and Mobile Athlon 64 2800+, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report bugs or inaccuracies on the site.