Select any two CPUs for comparison
VS

Gaming Performance Comparison

Recommended System Requirements
Game Athlon 5050e Dual Core Athlon 64 3000+
Cyberpunk 2077 607% 950%
Hitman 3 852% 1313%
Assassins Creed: Valhalla 852% 1313%
Resident Evil 8 686% 1066%
FIFA 21 562% 882%
Grand Theft Auto VI 1063% 1625%
Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War 585% 917%
Genshin Impact 436% 695%
The Medium 1114% 1701%
Far Cry 6 1016% 1556%

In terms of overall gaming performance, the AMD Athlon 5050e Dual Core is noticeably better than the AMD Athlon 64 3000+ when it comes to running the latest games. This also means it will be less likely to bottleneck more powerful GPUs, allowing them to achieve more of their gaming performance potential.

The Athlon 5050e Dual was released over three years more recently than the Athlon 64 3000+, and so the Athlon 5050e Dual is likely to have far better levels of support, and will be much more optimized and ultimately superior to the Athlon 64 3000+ when running the latest games.

The Athlon 5050e Dual has 1 more core than the Athlon 64 3000+. However, while the Athlon 5050e Dual will probably perform better than the Athlon 64 3000+, both CPUs are likely to struggle with the latest games, and will almost certainly bottleneck high-end graphics cards. This should not affect games that are a few years old, and even the latest games should at least be playable on very low settings, as only recently have game developers begun to harness the power of multiple cores.

More important for gaming than the number of cores and threads is the clock rate. Problematically, unless the two CPUs are from the same family, this can only serve as a general guide and nothing like an exact comparison, because the clock cycles per instruction (CPI) will vary so much.

The Athlon 5050e Dual and Athlon 64 3000+ are not from the same family of CPUs, so their clock speeds are by no means directly comparable. Bear in mind, then, that while the Athlon 5050e Dual has a 0.8 GHz faster frequency, this is not always an indicator that it will be superior in performance, despite frequency being crucial when trying to avoid GPU bottlenecking. In this case, however, the difference is probably a good indicator that the Athlon 5050e Dual is superior.

Aside from the clock rate, the next-most important CPU features for PC game performance are L2 and L3 cache size. Faster than RAM, the more cache available, the more data that can be stored for lightning-fast retrieval. L1 Cache is not usually an issue anymore for gaming, with most high-end CPUs eking out about the same L1 performance, and L2 is more important than L3 - but L3 is still important if you want to reach the highest levels of performance. Bear in mind that although it is better to have a larger cache, the larger it is, the higher the latency, so a balance has to be struck.

The Athlon 5050e Dual has a 512 KB bigger L2 cache than the Athlon 64 3000+, but neither of the CPUs have L3 caches, so the Athlon 5050e Dual wins out in this area with its larger L2 cache.

The maximum Thermal Design Power is the power in Watts that the CPU will consume in the worst case scenario. The lithography is the semiconductor manufacturing technology being used to create the CPU - the smaller this is, the more transistors that can be fit into the CPU, and the closer the connections. For both the lithography and the TDP, it is the lower the better, because a lower number means a lower amount of power is necessary to run the CPU, and consequently a lower amount of heat is produced.

The Athlon 5050e Dual has a 22 Watt lower Maximum TDP than the Athlon 64 3000+, and was created with a 25 nm smaller manufacturing technology. What this means is the Athlon 5050e Dual will consume significantly less power and consequently produce less heat, enabling more prolonged computational tasks with fewer adverse effects. This will lower your yearly electricity bill significantly, as well as prevent you from having to invest in extra cooling mechanisms (unless you overclock).

CPU Core Details

CPU CodenameBrisbaneWinchester
MoBo SocketSocket AM2Socket 939
Notebook CPUnono
Release Date21 Oct 200819 Oct 2004
CPU LinkGD LinkGD Link
Approved

CPU Technical Specifications

CPU Cores2vs1
CPU Threads-vs1
Clock Speed2.6 GHzvs1.8 GHz
Turbo Frequency-vs-
Max TDP45 Wvs67 W
Lithography65 nmvs90 nm
Bit Width-vs64 Bit
Max Temperature-vs65°C
Virtualization Technologynovsno
Comparison

CPU Cache and Memory

L1 Cache Size256 KBvs128 KB
L2 Cache Size1024 KBvs512 KB
L3 Cache Size-vs-
Memory Channels-vs2
ECC Memory Supportnovsno
Comparison

CPU Graphics

Graphicsno
Base GPU Frequency-vs-
Max GPU Frequency-vs-
DirectX-vs-
Displays Supported-vs-
Comparison

CPU Package and Version Specifications

Package Size-vs-
Revision-vs-
PCIe Revision-vs-
PCIe Configurations-vs-

Gaming Performance Value

Performance Value

CPU Mini Review

Mini ReviewOn April 21, 2005, less than a week after the release of Venice and San Diego, AMD announced its next addition to the Athlon 64 line, the Athlon 64 X2. Released on May 31, 2005, it also initially had two different core revisions available to the public, Manchester and Toledo, the only appreciable difference between them being the amount of L2 cache. Both were released only for Socket 939. The Athlon 64 X2 was received very well by reviewers and the general public, with a general consensus emerging that AMD's implementation of multi-core was superior to that of the competing Pentium D. Some felt initially that the X2 would cause market confusion with regard to price points since the new processor was targeted at the same enthusiast, US$350 and above market already occupied by AMD's existing socket 939 Athlon 64s. AMD's official breakdown of the chips placed the Athlon X2 aimed at a segment they called the prosumer, along with digital media fans. The Athlon 64 was targeted at the mainstream consumer, and the Athlon FX at gamers.Athlon 64 3000+ is an entry-level Processor based on the 90nm K8 micro-architecture.

It offers 1 Physical Core (1 Logical), clocked at 2.0GHz and 0.5MB of L2 Cache.
No relevant technologies are activated in a way the processor doesn't even support Virtualization.

The processor DOES NOT integrate any graphics. and has a rated board TDP of 67W.

Its performance is quite poor considering today's standards. Therefore, its sufficient for office tasks only.