Athlon 64 3500+ vs Pentium M 735
Aggregate performance score
Athlon 64 3500+ outperforms Pentium M 735 by a substantial 33% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Pentium M 735 and Athlon 64 3500+ processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3262 | 3181 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Pentium M | no data |
| Power efficiency | 0.81 | 0.26 |
| Architecture codename | Dothan (2004−2005) | San Diego (2001−2005) |
| Release date | 10 May 2004 (20 years ago) | January 2001 (23 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $59 |
Detailed specifications
Pentium M 735 and Athlon 64 3500+ 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) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 1.7 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1.7 GHz | 2.2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 400 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 32 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 130 nm |
| Die size | 87 mm2 | 230 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 144 million | 227 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 0.988V-1.34V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Pentium M 735 and Athlon 64 3500+ 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 | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | PPGA478 | 939 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7.5 Watt | 89 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Pentium M 735 and Athlon 64 3500+. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | - | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| PAE | 32 Bit | no data |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
Security technologies
Pentium M 735 and Athlon 64 3500+ technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | no data |
| EDB | - | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Pentium M 735 and Athlon 64 3500+ are enumerated here.
| VT-x | - | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Pentium M 735 and Athlon 64 3500+. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR2 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.18 | 0.24 |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7 Watt | 89 Watt |
Pentium M 735 has a 44.4% more advanced lithography process, and 1171.4% lower power consumption.
Athlon 64 3500+, on the other hand, has a 33.3% higher aggregate performance score.
The Athlon 64 3500+ is our recommended choice as it beats the Pentium M 735 in performance tests.
Be aware that Pentium M 735 is a notebook processor while Athlon 64 3500+ is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Pentium M 735 and Athlon 64 3500+, 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.
