3020e vs Phenom II X3 710

VS

Aggregate performance score

Phenom II X3 710
2009
3 cores / 3 threads, 95 Watt
0.98
3020e
2020
2 cores / 2 threads, 6 Watt
1.53
+56.1%

3020e outperforms Phenom II X3 710 by an impressive 56% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Phenom II X3 710 and 3020e processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking24762124
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation11.22no data
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Seriesno dataAMD Raven Ridge (Ryzen 2000 APU)
Power efficiency0.9824.13
Architecture codenameHeka (2009−2010)Dali (Zen) (2020)
Release date9 February 2009 (15 years ago)4 August 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$85no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Phenom II X3 710 and 3020e 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 cores3 (Tri-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads32
Base clock speed2.6 GHz1.2 GHz
Boost clock speed2.6 GHz2.6 GHz
L1 cache128 KB (per core)192 KB
L2 cache512 KB (per core)1 MB
L3 cache6 MB (shared)4 MB
Chip lithography45 nm14 nm
Die size258 mm2no data
Maximum core temperatureno data105 °C
Number of transistors758 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on Phenom II X3 710 and 3020e 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 configuration1no data
SocketAM3FT5
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt6 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Phenom II X3 710 and 3020e. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataMMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, BMI2, ABM, FMA, ADX, SMEP, SMAP, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND, RDSEED, SHA, SME
AES-NI-+
FMA-+
AVX-+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Phenom II X3 710 and 3020e are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Phenom II X3 710 and 3020e. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)AMD Radeon RX Vega 3

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Phenom II X3 710 and 3020e.

PCIe version2.0no 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.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Phenom II X3 710 0.98
3020e 1.53
+56.1%

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.

Phenom II X3 710 1551
3020e 2436
+57.1%

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.

Phenom II X3 710 331
3020e 661
+99.7%

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.

Phenom II X3 710 832
3020e 1081
+29.9%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.98 1.53
Recency 9 February 2009 4 August 2020
Physical cores 3 2
Threads 3 2
Chip lithography 45 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 6 Watt

Phenom II X3 710 has 50% more physical cores and 50% more threads.

3020e, on the other hand, has a 56.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 1483.3% lower power consumption.

The 3020e is our recommended choice as it beats the Phenom II X3 710 in performance tests.

Note that Phenom II X3 710 is a desktop processor while 3020e is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Phenom II X3 710 and 3020e, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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 Phenom II X3 710
Phenom II X3 710
AMD 3020e
3020e

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.

Community ratings

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


3.9 54 votes

Rate Phenom II X3 710 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 812 votes

Rate 3020e on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Phenom II X3 710 or 3020e, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.