Pentium 350 vs Athlon 1400
Primary details
Comparing Athlon 1400 and Pentium 350 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Architecture codename | Thunderbird C (2000−2001) | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) |
| Release date | June 2001 (23 years ago) | 21 November 2011 (12 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Athlon 1400 and Pentium 350 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 | 1.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.4 GHz | 1.2 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 5 GT/s |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256 KB | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 3 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 180 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 120 mm2 | 131 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 76 °C |
| Number of transistors | 37 million | 504 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon 1400 and Pentium 350 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 | A | FCLGA1155 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 72 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 1400 and Pentium 350. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 |
| vPro | no data | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | + |
| FDI | no data | - |
| Fast Memory Access | no data | + |
Security technologies
Athlon 1400 and Pentium 350 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 Athlon 1400 and Pentium 350 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon 1400 and Pentium 350. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 32 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 21 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon 1400 and Pentium 350.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 2 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 1 | 2 |
| Threads | 1 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 180 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 72 Watt | 15 Watt |
Pentium 350 has 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads, a 462.5% more advanced lithography process, and 380% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Athlon 1400 and Pentium 350. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Athlon 1400 is a desktop processor while Pentium 350 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 1400 and Pentium 350, 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.
