Athlon MP 1600+ vs Atom x5-E3940
Primary details
Comparing Atom x5-E3940 and Athlon MP 1600+ processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2283 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | 5x Intel Atom | AMD Athlon MP |
| Architecture codename | Apollo Lake (2016) | K7 (2000−2004) |
| Release date | 26 October 2016 (7 years ago) | 15 October 2001 (22 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $210 |
Detailed specifications
Atom x5-E3940 and Athlon MP 1600+ 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 1.6 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 1.4 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | FSB |
| Bus rate | no data | 266 MT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 10.5 |
| L1 cache | 56K (per core) | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 2 MB (shared) | 256 KB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 180 nm |
| Die size | no data | 128 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 103 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 38 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Atom x5-E3940 and Athlon MP 1600+ 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) | 2 (Multiprocessor) |
| Socket | Intel BGA 1296 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 9.5 Watt | 62.8 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Atom x5-E3940 and Athlon MP 1600+. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
Security technologies
Atom x5-E3940 and Athlon MP 1600+ technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Atom x5-E3940 and Athlon MP 1600+ are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Atom x5-E3940 and Athlon MP 1600+. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3-1866 | no data |
| Maximum memory size | 8 GB | 4 GB |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel HD Graphics 500 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Atom x5-E3940 and Athlon MP 1600+.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 4 | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 26 October 2016 | 15 October 2001 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 1 |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 180 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 9 Watt | 62 Watt |
Atom x5-E3940 has an age advantage of 15 years, 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, a 1185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 588.9% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Atom x5-E3940 and Athlon MP 1600+. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Atom x5-E3940 is a notebook processor while Athlon MP 1600+ is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Atom x5-E3940 and Athlon MP 1600+, 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.
