Athlon XP 2500+ vs Athlon 64 3000+

VS

Aggregate performance score

Athlon 64 3000+
2001
1 core / 1 thread, 89 Watt
0.21
+40%
Athlon XP 2500+
2003
1 core / 1 thread, 68 Watt
0.15

Athlon 64 3000+ outperforms Athlon XP 2500+ by a considerable 40% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Athlon 64 3000+ and Athlon XP 2500+ processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking32183327
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Power efficiency0.220.21
Architecture codenameClawhammer (2001−2005)Barton (2001−2004)
Release dateJanuary 2001 (23 years ago)February 2003 (21 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$65no data

Detailed specifications

Athlon 64 3000+ and Athlon XP 2500+ 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 cores1 (Single-Core)1 (Single-Core)
Threads11
Boost clock speed2 GHz1.83 GHz
L1 cache128 KB128 KB
L2 cache512K512 KB
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography130 nm130 nm
Die size193 mm2101 mm2
Number of transistors154 million63 million
64 bit support+-
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Athlon 64 3000+ and Athlon XP 2500+ 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
Socket754A
Power consumption (TDP)89 Watt68 Watt

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 64 3000+ 0.21
+40%
Athlon XP 2500+ 0.15

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 64 3000+ 334
+44.6%
Athlon XP 2500+ 231

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.21 0.15
Power consumption (TDP) 89 Watt 68 Watt

Athlon 64 3000+ has a 40% higher aggregate performance score.

Athlon XP 2500+, on the other hand, has 30.9% lower power consumption.

The Athlon 64 3000+ is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon XP 2500+ in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 64 3000+ and Athlon XP 2500+, 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 64 3000+
Athlon 64 3000+
AMD Athlon XP 2500+
Athlon XP 2500+

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.


3.5 117 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 35 votes

Rate Athlon XP 2500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Athlon 64 3000+ or Athlon XP 2500+, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.