Athlon 3000G vs Xeon W3565
Aggregate performance score
Athlon 3000G outperforms Xeon W3565 by a substantial 33% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon W3565 and Athlon 3000G processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1859 | 1670 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.66 | 5.27 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | AMD Athlon |
| Power efficiency | 1.54 | 7.63 |
| Architecture codename | Bloomfield (2008−2010) | Zen+ (2018−2019) |
| Release date | 1 November 2009 (15 years ago) | 21 November 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $70 | $49 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Xeon W3565 has 7% better value for money than Athlon 3000G.
Detailed specifications
Xeon W3565 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 8 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.46 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Multiplier | no data | 35 |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 8 MB (shared) | 4 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 263 mm2 | 209.78 mm2? |
| Number of transistors | 731 million | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon W3565 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 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FCLGA1366 | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon W3565 and Athlon 3000G. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.2 | no data |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| PowerNow | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 1.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | + | no data |
| PAE | 36 Bit | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Xeon W3565 and Athlon 3000G technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon W3565 and Athlon 3000G are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon W3565 and Athlon 3000G. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| Maximum memory size | 24 GB | 64 GB? |
| Max memory channels | 3 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 42.671 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | AMD Radeon RX Vega 3 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon W3565 and Athlon 3000G.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 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.
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.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.12 | 2.82 |
| Recency | 1 November 2009 | 21 November 2019 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 8 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 35 Watt |
Xeon W3565 has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Athlon 3000G, on the other hand, has a 33% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 271.4% lower power consumption.
The Athlon 3000G is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon W3565 in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon W3565 is a server/workstation processor while Athlon 3000G is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon W3565 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.
