CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 330 vs 3000+ 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

5.2

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Atom 330 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Atom 330  based on its performance and power consumption.

See full details

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

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Atom 330

Reasons to consider the
Intel Atom 330

Report a correction
Much newer manufacturing process 45 nm vs 90 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Significantly more l2 cache 1 MB vs 0.13 MB 8x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much lower typical power consumption 6.5W vs 50.38W 7.7x lower typical power consumption
Has a NX bit Yes vs No Somewhat common; Prevents a common class of security exploits
Significantly more l2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core vs 0.13 MB/core 4x more l2 cache per core
Significantly better performance per watt 3.77 pt/W vs 0.6 pt/W More than 6.2x better performance per watt
Significantly higher Maximum operating temperature 85.2 °C vs 70 °C More than 20% higher Maximum operating temperature
More threads 4 vs 1 3 more threads
More cores 2 vs 1 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Much lower annual home energy cost 1.93 $/year vs 14.94 $/year 7.8x lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 7.01 $/year vs 54.31 $/year 7.7x lower annual commercial energy cost
Front view of AMD Sempron 3000+

Reasons to consider the
AMD Sempron 3000+

Report a correction
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for maximum performance when needed, while conserving power and minimizing heat production when not needed
Higher clock speed 1.8 GHz vs 1.6 GHz More than 10% higher clock speed
Better PassMark (Single core) score 513 vs 252 More than 2x better PassMark (Single core) score

Benchmarks Real world tests of Atom 330 vs Sempron 3000+

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Atom 330  vs
Sempron 3000+ 
Clock speed 1.6 GHz 1.8 GHz
Cores Dual core Single core
Socket type
437
754

features

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

power consumption

TDP 8W 62W
Annual home energy cost 1.93 $/year 14.94 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 7.01 $/year 54.31 $/year
Performance per watt 3.77 pt/W 0.6 pt/W
Typical power consumption 6.5W 50.38W

details

Atom 330  vs
Sempron 3000+ 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 1
L2 cache 1 MB 0.13 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 0.13 MB/core
Manufacture process 45 nm 90 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 85.2°C Unknown - 70°C

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

bus

Clock speed 533 MHz 200 MHz
Intel Atom 330
Report a correction
AMD Sempron 3000+
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus