EPYC 9015 vs Mobile Athlon 64 3000+

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

Comparing Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ and EPYC 9015 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking3132not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopServer
SeriesMobile Athlon 64no data
Power efficiency0.76no data
Architecture codenameOakville (2003−2004)Turin (2024)
Release dateAugust 2003 (21 year ago)10 October 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$527

Detailed specifications

Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ and EPYC 9015 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 cores1 (Single-Core)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads116
Base clock speedno data3.6 GHz
Boost clock speed2 GHz4.1 GHz
Bus rate800 MHzno data
L1 cache128K80 KB (per core)
L2 cache512K1 MB (per core)
L3 cacheno data64 MB (shared)
Chip lithographyno data4 nm
Die size193 mm22x 70.6 mm2
Number of transistors106 million16,630 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ and EPYC 9015 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 configuration12
Socket754SP5
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt125 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ and EPYC 9015. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI-+
AVX-+
Precision Boost 2no data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ and EPYC 9015 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ and EPYC 9015. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1DDR5

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ and EPYC 9015.

PCIe versionno data5.0
PCI Express lanesno data128

Pros & cons summary


Physical cores 1 8
Threads 1 16
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 125 Watt

Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ has 257.1% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9015, on the other hand, has 700% more physical cores and 1500% more threads.

We couldn't decide between Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ and EPYC 9015. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ is a notebook processor while EPYC 9015 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ and EPYC 9015, 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.


AMD Mobile Athlon 64 3000+
Mobile Athlon 64 3000+
AMD EPYC 9015
EPYC 9015

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.

Community ratings

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


No user ratings yet.

Rate Mobile Athlon 64 3000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

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

Rate EPYC 9015 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ or EPYC 9015, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.