Athlon 3000G vs Atom C3958
Aggregate performance score
Athlon 3000G outperforms Atom C3958 by a small 5% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Atom C3958 and Athlon 3000G processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1633 | 1604 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.54 | 5.29 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Atom | AMD Athlon |
| Architecture codename | Goldmont (2016−2017) | Zen+ (2018−2020) |
| Release date | 15 August 2017 (6 years ago) | 7 November 2019 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $449 | $49 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Athlon 3000G has 880% better value for money than Atom C3958.
Detailed specifications
Atom C3958 and Athlon 3000G 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 | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 16 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| L1 cache | 896 KB | 192 KB |
| L2 cache | 16 MB | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | no data | 4 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | no data | 209.78 mm2? |
| Maximum core temperature | 83 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 4940 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | Yes |
Compatibility
Information on Atom C3958 and Athlon 3000G 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 (Uniprocessor) | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | no data | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 31 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Atom C3958 and Athlon 3000G. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | no data | + |
| PowerNow | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Atom C3958 and Athlon 3000G are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Atom C3958 and Athlon 3000G. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3L-1600 | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| Maximum memory size | 256 GB | 64 GB? |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 38.397 GB/s | 42.671 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon RX Vega 3 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Atom C3958 and Athlon 3000G.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | 6 |
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 outperforms Atom C3958 by 5% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Athlon 3000G outperforms Atom C3958 by 5% in Passmark.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.77 | 2.90 |
| Recency | 15 August 2017 | 7 November 2019 |
| Physical cores | 16 | 2 |
| Threads | 16 | 4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 31 Watt | 35 Watt |
Atom C3958 has 700% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and 12.9% lower power consumption.
Athlon 3000G, on the other hand, has a 4.7% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 2 years.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Atom C3958 and Athlon 3000G.
Be aware that Atom C3958 is a server/workstation processor while Athlon 3000G is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Atom C3958 and Athlon 3000G, 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.
