i3-8000 vs Athlon II P320
Primary details
Comparing Athlon II P320 and Core i3-8000 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2944 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD Athlon II | Intel Core i3 |
| Power efficiency | 1.67 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Champlain (2010−2011) | Coffee Lake (2017−2019) |
| Release date | 12 May 2010 (14 years ago) | 1 September 2018 (6 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Athlon II P320 and Core i3-8000 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.1 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 3.0 |
| Bus rate | 3200 MHz | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 36 |
| L1 cache | 256 KB | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 256K (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 6 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | no data | 126 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 72 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon II P320 and Core i3-8000 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 | no data | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | S1g4 | 1151 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon II P320 and Core i3-8000. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | SSE-3, SSE4A, 3DNow!, MMX, DEP, SVM | no data |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon II P320 and Core i3-8000 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon II P320 and Core i3-8000. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 38.397 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel UHD Graphics 630 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon II P320 and Core i3-8000.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 12 May 2010 | 1 September 2018 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 4 |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 65 Watt |
Athlon II P320 has 160% lower power consumption.
i3-8000, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 221.4% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Athlon II P320 and Core i3-8000. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Athlon II P320 is a notebook processor while Core i3-8000 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon II P320 and Core i3-8000, 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.
