Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ vs Phenom X4 9650

VS

Primary details

Comparing Phenom X4 9650 and Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2404not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Seriesno dataMobile Athlon 64
Power efficiency1.08no data
Architecture codenameAgena (2007−2008)Oakville (2003−2004)
Release dateMarch 2008 (16 years ago)August 2003 (21 year ago)

Detailed specifications

Phenom X4 9650 and Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)1 (Single-Core)
Threads41
Boost clock speed2.3 GHz2 GHz
Bus rateno data800 MHz
L1 cache128 KB (per core)128K
L2 cache512 KB (per core)512K
L3 cache2 MB (shared)no data
Chip lithography65 nmno data
Die size285 mm2193 mm2
Number of transistors450 million106 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Phenom X4 9650 and Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ 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
SocketAM2+754
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt35 Watt

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Phenom X4 9650 and Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Phenom X4 9650 and Mobile Athlon 64 3000+. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR1

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.



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 X4 9650 1721
+282%
Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ 450

Pros & cons summary


Physical cores 4 1
Threads 4 1
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 35 Watt

Phenom X4 9650 has 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads.

Mobile Athlon 64 3000+, on the other hand, has 171.4% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Phenom X4 9650 and Mobile Athlon 64 3000+. We've got no test results to judge.

Note that Phenom X4 9650 is a desktop processor while Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Phenom X4 9650 and Mobile Athlon 64 3000+, 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 X4 9650
Phenom X4 9650
AMD Mobile Athlon 64 3000+
Mobile Athlon 64 3000+

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.


3.8 225 votes

Rate Phenom X4 9650 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Phenom X4 9650 or Mobile Athlon 64 3000+, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.