Athlon 300U vs Pentium M 738
Primary Details
Comparing Pentium M 738 and Athlon 300U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | not rated | 1628 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Pentium M | AMD Athlon |
| Architecture codename | Dothan (2004−2005) | Raven Ridge 2 (2019) |
| Release date | no data | 6 January 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Current price | $319 | $486 |
Detailed Specifications
Pentium M 738 and Athlon 300U 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 | 1 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.4 GHz | 3.3 GHz |
| Bus support | 400 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 128K (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 4 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | no data | 209.78 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 4500 Million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Pentium M 738 and Athlon 300U 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 | no data | FP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Pentium M 738 and Athlon 300U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | XFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT |
| AES-NI | no data | + |
| AVX | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Pentium M 738 and Athlon 300U are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Pentium M 738 and Athlon 300U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 38.397 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | no data | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon RX Vega 3 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Pentium M 738 and Athlon 300U.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 12 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
wPrime 32
wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.
Benchmark coverage: 18%
Pentium M 738 outperforms Athlon 300U by 729% in wPrime 32.
Pros & Cons Summary
| Physical cores | 1 | 2 |
| Threads | 1 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 15 Watt |
We couldn't decide between Pentium M 738 and Athlon 300U. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Pentium M 738 and Athlon 300U, 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.
