Athlon X4 860K vs Athlon 3000G

VS

Aggregate performance score

Athlon 3000G
2019
2 cores / 4 threads, 35 Watt
2.82
+30.6%
Athlon X4 860K
2014
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
2.16

Athlon 3000G outperforms Athlon X4 860K by a substantial 31% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Athlon 3000G and Athlon X4 860K processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking16721847
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.27no data
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
SeriesAMD Athlonno data
Power efficiency7.632.15
Architecture codenameZen+ (2018−2019)Kaveri (2014−2015)
Release date21 November 2019 (5 years ago)12 August 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$49no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Athlon 3000G and Athlon X4 860K 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 cores2 (Dual-core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads44
Base clock speed3.5 GHz3.7 GHz
Boost clock speed3.5 GHz4 GHz
Bus typePCIe 3.0no data
Multiplier35no data
L1 cache96K (per core)256K
L2 cache512K (per core)4 MB
L3 cache4 MB (shared)no data
Chip lithography14 nm28 nm
Die size209.78 mm2?245 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data72 °C
Number of transistors4,800 million2,411 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+no data
Unlocked multiplier++

Compatibility

Information on Athlon 3000G and Athlon X4 860K 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1
SocketAM4FM2+
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt95 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 3000G and Athlon X4 860K. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
FMA-+
AVX++
PowerNow+-
Precision Boost 2+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon 3000G and Athlon X4 860K are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon 3000G and Athlon X4 860K. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4 Dual-channelDDR3-2133
Maximum memory size64 GB?no data
Maximum memory bandwidth42.671 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon Vega 3no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon 3000G and Athlon X4 860K.

PCIe version3.03.0
PCI Express lanes616

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.

Athlon 3000G 2.82
+30.6%
Athlon X4 860K 2.16

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.

Athlon 3000G 4484
+30.6%
Athlon X4 860K 3434

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.

Athlon 3000G 956
+108%
Athlon X4 860K 460

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.

Athlon 3000G 1958
+73.3%
Athlon X4 860K 1130

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.82 2.16
Recency 21 November 2019 12 August 2014
Physical cores 2 4
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 95 Watt

Athlon 3000G has a 30.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 171.4% lower power consumption.

Athlon X4 860K, on the other hand, has 100% more physical cores.

The Athlon 3000G is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon X4 860K in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 3000G and Athlon X4 860K, 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 Athlon 3000G
Athlon 3000G
AMD Athlon X4 860K
Athlon X4 860K

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 2101 vote

Rate Athlon 3000G on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 254 votes

Rate Athlon X4 860K on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Athlon 3000G or Athlon X4 860K, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.