Ryzen 3 PRO 4350G vs Athlon XP 1600+
Primary details
Comparing Athlon XP 1600+ and Ryzen 3 PRO 4350G processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 994 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | AMD Ryzen 3 |
| Architecture codename | Thoroughbred (2001−2002) | Renoir (2020−2023) |
| Release date | January 2001 (23 years ago) | 21 July 2020 (4 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Athlon XP 1600+ and Ryzen 3 PRO 4350G 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) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.4 GHz | 4 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 38 |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256 KB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 4 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 180 nm | 12 nm |
| Die size | 150 mm2 | 156 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 37 million | 9800 Million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon XP 1600+ and Ryzen 3 PRO 4350G 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 | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 63 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon XP 1600+ and Ryzen 3 PRO 4350G. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon XP 1600+ and Ryzen 3 PRO 4350G are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon XP 1600+ and Ryzen 3 PRO 4350G. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 128 GB |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 51.196 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon XP 1600+ and Ryzen 3 PRO 4350G.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
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
| Physical cores | 1 | 4 |
| Threads | 1 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 180 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 63 Watt | 65 Watt |
Athlon XP 1600+ has 3.2% lower power consumption.
Ryzen 3 PRO 4350G, on the other hand, has 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 1400% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Athlon XP 1600+ and Ryzen 3 PRO 4350G. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon XP 1600+ and Ryzen 3 PRO 4350G, 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.
