CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 65 vs 3700+ among all CPUs

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

Sky Diver and Cloud Gate

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

No winner declared

Too close to call

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

AMD Athlon X2 65

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of AMD Athlon X2 65

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of AMD Athlon X2 65

Reasons to consider the
AMD Athlon X2 65

Report a correction
Much newer manufacturing process 65 nm vs 130 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much lower typical power consumption 28.44W vs 72.31W 2.5x lower typical power consumption
Has virtualization support Yes vs No Somewhat common; Boosts performance of virtual machines
Much higher Maximum operating temperature 100 °C vs 70 °C Around 45% higher Maximum operating temperature
More cores 2 vs 1 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Much lower annual home energy cost 8.43 $/year vs 21.44 $/year 2.5x lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 30.66 $/year vs 77.96 $/year 2.5x lower annual commercial energy cost
Better performance per watt 1.51 pt/W vs 0.49 pt/W More than 3x better performance per watt
Front view of AMD Athlon 3700+

Reasons to consider the
AMD Athlon 3700+

Report a correction
Higher clock speed 2.4 GHz vs 2.1 GHz Around 15% higher clock speed
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.87 GHz vs 2.21 GHz Around 30% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.4 GHz vs 2.1 GHz Around 15% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Athlon X2 65 vs 3700+

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Athlon X2 65  vs
3700+ 
Clock speed 2.1 GHz 2.4 GHz
Cores Dual core Single core
Socket type
S1
754
939
Is unlocked No No

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes No
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
SSE3
SSE
3DNow!
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 35W 89W
Annual home energy cost 8.43 $/year 21.44 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 30.66 $/year 77.96 $/year
Performance per watt 1.51 pt/W 0.49 pt/W
Typical power consumption 28.44W 72.31W

details

Athlon X2 65  vs
3700+ 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 2 1
L2 cache 1 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 65 nm 130 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 100°C Unknown - 70°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 2.21 GHz 2.87 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.1 GHz 2.4 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 645.2 978.6
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.21 GHz 2.87 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU None None
Label N/A N/A
Latest DirectX N/A N/A
Number of displays supported N/A N/A
GPU clock speed N/A N/A
Turbo clock speed N/A N/A
3DMark06 N/A N/A
AMD Athlon X2 65
Report a correction
AMD Athlon 3700+
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus