Atom E3825 vs Athlon II X3 455
Primary details
Comparing Athlon II X3 455 and Atom E3825 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2351 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.52 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Atom |
| Power efficiency | 1.18 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Rana (2009−2011) | Bay Trail-I (2013) |
| Release date | 7 December 2010 (13 years ago) | 8 October 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $88 | $73 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Athlon II X3 455 and Atom E3825 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 | 3 (Tri-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 3 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 3.3 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 3.3 GHz | 1.33 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | 169 mm2 | no data |
| Number of transistors | 300 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon II X3 455 and Atom E3825 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 | AM3 | Intel BGA1170 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 6 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon II X3 455 and Atom E3825. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon II X3 455 and Atom E3825. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel HD Graphics |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon II X3 455 and Atom E3825.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | no data |
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 7 December 2010 | 8 October 2013 |
| Physical cores | 3 | 2 |
| Threads | 3 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 6 Watt |
Athlon II X3 455 has 50% more physical cores and 50% more threads.
Atom E3825, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 104.5% more advanced lithography process, and 1483.3% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Athlon II X3 455 and Atom E3825. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Athlon II X3 455 is a desktop processor while Atom E3825 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon II X3 455 and Atom E3825, 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.
