Mobile Athlon 64 2700+ vs Atom E3805

VS

Aggregate performance score

Atom E3805
2 cores / 2 threads, 3 Watt
0.25
Mobile Athlon 64 2700+
2005
1 core / 1 thread, 35 Watt
0.25

Primary details

Comparing Atom E3805 and Mobile Athlon 64 2700+ processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking31603168
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAtomMobile Athlon 64
Power efficiency7.930.68
Architecture codenameBay TrailClawhammer (2001−2005)
Release dateno dataAugust 2005 (19 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Atom E3805 and Mobile Athlon 64 2700+ 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 cores2 (Dual-core)1 (Single-Core)
Threads21
Boost clock speed1.33 GHz1.6 GHz
Bus rateno data800 MHz
L1 cacheno data128K
L2 cacheno data512K
Chip lithography22 nmno data
Die sizeno data193 mm2
Number of transistorsno data106 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Atom E3805 and Mobile Athlon 64 2700+ 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 configurationno data1
Socketno data754
Power consumption (TDP)3 Watt35 Watt

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Atom E3805 and Mobile Athlon 64 2700+. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR1

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.

Atom E3805 0.25
Mobile Athlon 64 2700+ 0.25

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.

Atom E3805 406
+2%
Mobile Athlon 64 2700+ 398

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Physical cores 2 1
Threads 2 1
Power consumption (TDP) 3 Watt 35 Watt

Atom E3805 has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and 1066.7% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Atom E3805 and Mobile Athlon 64 2700+.


Should you still have questions on choice between Atom E3805 and Mobile Athlon 64 2700+, 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.


Intel Atom E3805
Atom E3805
AMD Mobile Athlon 64 2700+
Mobile Athlon 64 2700+

Other comparisons

We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4.3 11 votes

Rate Atom E3805 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1 2 votes

Rate Mobile Athlon 64 2700 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Atom E3805 or Mobile Athlon 64 2700+, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.