OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

AMD Athlon 3000G review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£25PassMark multi-core score:4440N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:N/A GHzCPU socket:AM4TDP (Thermal design power):35 W

AMD Athlon 3000G Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 52 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Athlon 3000G
6.1/10

Overall score

Score
6.1/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
Score components

40%

3.9

Technical score

25%

8.0

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

8.4

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 66% of processors
7.3

Value for money

Value for money
7.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 53% of models
Score components

70%

6.1

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–²Better than 53%
3.9

Technical score

Technical score
3.9/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
Score components

60%

2.5

Performance

18%

4.5

Architecture

10%

5.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.7

Power & Thermal

4%

8.5

Platform

1%

6.8

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 89%
8.0

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 72% of models

80%

7.5

Average grade

20%

9.9

Popularity

Grades by review (52)
13 reviews: 6 with a printed score, 7 estimated from the review. 39 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–²Better than 72%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • amd-athlon-3000g
  • amd-athlon-3000g
  • amd-athlon-3000g
  • amd-athlon-3000g
  • amd-athlon-3000g
amd-athlon-3000g
amd-athlon-3000g
amd-athlon-3000g
amd-athlon-3000g
amd-athlon-3000g
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the AMD Athlon 3000G

Based on 10 · 43

Reviewers love its overclocking and low cost for everyday use, but the low core count and gaming performance draw complaints.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the AMD Athlon 3000G

Based on 187 owners sharing their experience in online comments

64%positive10%mixed26%negative

Owners praise its low-cost, capable gaming, while limited performance and stability problems hold it back.

What owners dislike

  • Integrated graphics struggle with demanding modern games, often dropping to 15–30 fps even at low settings.36
  • Some owners report random crashes, freezes or restarts during games, especially with overclocking or certain drivers.12
  • Demanding games often need low settings and reduced resolution to hold playable frame rates.8
  • Some owners report no display output or boot failure after building the system, often linked to the motherboard or power supply.6
  • Owners report the integrated graphics eventually fall short, so a dedicated graphics card is needed for newer games.6
  • Running only one RAM stick, or 4 GB, noticeably hurts game performance and causes stutter.5
  • Some games fail to load saves, show black screens or report missing DirectX 11 support, even with a supported graphics card.5
  • Some budget motherboards, especially A320 boards, block CPU and memory overclocking, and BIOS updates can remove the option.4
  • Pushing the CPU to high clocks can cause blue screens, reboots and instability until the overclock is lowered.3
  • Unlocking the second core or enabling the Vega 3 graphics through BIOS or tools is unreliable and can cause display problems.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Athlon 3000G

Technical score
Technical score
3.9/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
Score components:

60%

2.5

Performance

18%

4.5

Architecture

10%

5.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.7

Power & Thermal

4%

8.5

Platform

1%

6.8

Integrated graphics

3.9
Reviews score
8.0
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 53% of models
Score components:

70%

6.1

Overall score

30%

10

Price

7.3
Processor type
desktop
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to that of 39.5% of processors.
CPU socket
AM4
This processor uses the AM4 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 75.1% of processors and equal to that of 9.4% of processors.
Chipset
AMD 300 Series, AMD 400 Series, AMD 500 Series
This processor supports AMD 300 Series, AMD 400 Series, AMD 500 Series chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 72.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.9% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V instruction sets, which is broader support than 85.3% of processors and equal to that of 6% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
2
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 2 CPU cores, which is fewer than 80.4% of processors and equal to 19.6% of processors.
CPU threads
4
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 4 CPU threads, which is fewer than 69% of processors and equal to 25.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
N/A
CPU base clock speed
2x 3.5 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 2x3.5 GHz which is lower than that of 78.5% of processors and equal to that of 1.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
4,440
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 4,440 in PassMark, which is lower than 75.9% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 52% of processors and equal to that of 32.9% of processors.
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 14 nm
This processor is built on the GlobalFoundries 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 51.6% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% of processors.
L3 cache
4 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 4 MB which is smaller than that of 71.7% of processors and equal to that of 13.8% of processors.
L2 cache
1 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 1 MB which is smaller than that of 68.3% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
L1 cache
192 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 192 KB which is smaller than that of 79.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.7% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 25.2% of processors and equal to that of 31.1% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,667 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,667 MHz, which is lower than that of 55.4% of processors and equal to 1.1% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2667 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2667 MHz, which is lower than that of 59.2% of processors and equal to 0.6% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
128 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 128 GB of memory, which is more than 59.3% of processors and equal to 22.8% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Radeon Vega 3
Integrated GPU model
Radeon Vega 3
This processor uses the Radeon Vega 3 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 67% of processors and equal to that in 1.6% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
3
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 3 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 92.9% of processors and equal to 2.4% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
1,100 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 1,100 MHz which is higher than that of 94.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW encode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW encode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 73.1% of processors and equal to 0.1% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
TDP (Thermal design power)
35 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 35 W which is lower than that of 53.2% of processors and equal to that of 14% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
35 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 35 W which is lower than that of 53.3% of processors and equal to that of 14.1% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more
What reviewers say

AMD Athlon 3000G vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 19.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.0/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 72% of models

    80%

    7.5

    Average grade

    20%

    9.9

    Popularity

    Grades by review (52)
    13 reviews: 6 with a printed score, 7 estimated from the review. 39 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.0 vs 6.7
  • 5 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • 2x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    128 GB vs 64 GB
  • Supports ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (AM4 vs FP5).
    AM4 vs FP5
  • 19.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.0/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 72% of models

    80%

    7.5

    Average grade

    20%

    9.9

    Popularity

    Grades by review (52)
    13 reviews: 6 with a printed score, 7 estimated from the review. 39 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.0 vs 6.7
  • 10x cheaper
    AMD Athlon 3000G is cheaper than the average processor (£25 vs £250).
    £25 vs £250
  • 16.7% higher sentiment score
    8.4 vs 7.2
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (AM4 vs FP5).
    AM4 vs FP5
  • Broader instruction support
    This processor supports a broader instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • More advanced Turbo Core
    This processor has a more advanced Turbo Core version than the average processor (3 vs 2).
    3.0 vs 2.0
  • 16.4% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (148 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    148 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 8.1% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (GlobalFoundries 14 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    GlobalFoundries 14 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 2x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    128 GB vs 64 GB
  • Supports ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • 3.14x higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (1,100 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    1,100 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 5 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • 22.2% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (35 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    35 W vs 45 W
  • 81.6% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (957 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    957 vs 5,209
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 61.3% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (4,440 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    4,440 vs 11,469
  • 72.9% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (133 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    133 vs 490
  • 70% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (842 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    842 vs 2,804.5
  • 37.7% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (956 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    956 vs 1,535
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Raven Ridge vs Kaby Lake).
    Raven Ridge vs Kaby Lake
  • 23.7% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1951 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,951 vs 2,558
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Memory Guard, SME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Memory Guard, SME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • Older TPM support
    This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (fTPM 2 vs PTT 2).
    fTPM 2.0 vs PTT 2.0
  • 81.6% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (957 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    957 vs 5,209
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 61.3% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (4,440 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    4,440 vs 11,469
  • 70% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (842 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    842 vs 2,804.5
  • 72.9% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (133 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    133 vs 490
  • 37.7% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (956 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    956 vs 1,535
  • 23.7% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1951 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,951 vs 2,558
  • 2 fewer performance cores
    This processor has fewer performance cores than the average processor (2 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    2 vs 4
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    4 vs 8
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x3.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x3.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Raven Ridge vs Kaby Lake).
    Raven Ridge vs Kaby Lake
  • 66.7% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    1 MB vs 3 MB
  • 16.7% larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    14 nm vs 12 nm
  • 55.6% smaller L3 cache
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    4 MB vs 9 MB
  • 50% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (192 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    192 KB vs 384 KB
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 4 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (12 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    12 vs 16
  • 16.7% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2,667 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    2,667 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2667 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR4-2,667 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 87.5% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (3 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    3 vs 24
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 5 °C lower temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

5.0
RandomGaminginHD
≈ estimated
11/11/2025
Re-release review · gaming tests at 720p and 1080p
Verdict
AMD Athlon 3000G has changed little, and its gaming performance is too weak for most modern titles despite its budget appeal.
7.0
The Tech Quest
≈ estimated
24/08/2025
Gaming test · Vega 3 integrated graphics at 720p and 1080p
Verdict
AMD Athlon 3000G can run some games, mostly older titles, since newer ones are too demanding for its integrated graphics.
6.0
The Tech Quest
≈ estimated
10/08/2025
Hands-on review · gaming benchmarks and older game tests
Verdict
AMD Athlon 3000G is fine for browsing and older games, but not suited to serious modern gaming.
4.0
Iceberg Tech
≈ estimated
19/02/2025
Hands-on review · dual-core gaming and iGPU benchmarks
Verdict
AMD Athlon 3000G is a dual-core chip that struggles badly in modern games, so older Ryzen chips are the better choice.
8.0
Green Ham Gaming
≈ estimated
05/11/2024
Hands-on review · game benchmarks and synthetic tests
Verdict
AMD Athlon 3000G is surprisingly capable for budget gaming at low settings, though its dual-core design shows its limits in demanding titles.
7.0
Toasty Bros
≈ estimated
11/02/2022
Hands-on review · game benchmarks at 1080p low settings
Verdict
AMD Athlon 3000G is still decent for gaming on a tight budget, but an Intel chip beats it at similar prices.
8.0
TechDweeb
≈ estimated
24/01/2022
Full build and gaming test · Athlon 3000G with overclock
Verdict
AMD Athlon 3000G is playable for budget gaming at 720p low, worth it for a cheap build but not for high settings.
4.0
Bit Goblin
≈ estimated
25/11/2021
Hands-on review · value and gaming check
Verdict
AMD Athlon 3000G is poor value at its used-market price; a Ryzen 1200 AF or Core i3 is the better buy.
5.0
Dinkie The Sink
≈ estimated
07/07/2020
Hands-on review · gaming tests at max settings
Verdict
AMD Athlon 3000G is not good by any means, though it plays some games surprisingly well with a dedicated GPU.
8.0
Snickerrick
≈ estimated
02/03/2020
Hands-on review · overclocking, benchmarks and game tests
Verdict
AMD Athlon 3000G is not for gaming, but it is a fun, capable chip for HTPC and office builds despite driver problems.
7.0
Hoosier Hardware
≈ estimated
12/02/2020
Hands-on test · gaming with a GTX 1650
Verdict
AMD Athlon 3000G is a strong low-end chip for daily tasks, but keep expectations low for modern triple-A games.
7.0
Tech By Matt
≈ estimated
22/01/2020
Gaming test · esports titles, overclock and dedicated GPU upgrade
Verdict
AMD Athlon 3000G is fine on a tight budget at 720p, but the 3200G is the better buy.
More graded video reviews (9)
creator’s own scoreestimated by us

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

10
techpowerup.com
✓ explicit
19/11/2019
Benchmark review · Entry-level desktop chip
Verdict
The AMD Athlon 3000G is a basic office and media PC chip with an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, but its graphics only handle older and light games.
10
guru3d.com
✓ explicit
03/12/2019
Lab test · Benchmarks and gaming
Verdict
The AMD Athlon 3000G suits office work and older games, though it trails the Pentium Gold G5600 in single-core tasks and struggles with modern games.
8.0
phoronix.com
≈ estimated
24/12/2019
Linux benchmark · Entry-level chip
Verdict
The AMD Athlon 3000G is a low-power chip for storage boxes and light Linux tasks, though it falls far behind newer Zen 2 desktop chips.
8.0
pcmag.com
✓ explicit
03/06/2020
Benchmarks and gaming · Entry-level chip
Verdict
The AMD Athlon 3000G suits office work and older games, though it trails the Pentium Gold G5600 in single-core tasks and struggles with modern games.
8.0
androidpctv.com
≈ estimated
10/01/2020
Hands-on test · Mini-ITX build
Verdict
The AMD Athlon 3000G is a low-power dual-core chip whose Vega 3 graphics handle 4K video and light games, suiting small media PCs.
modding.fr
19/11/2019
Not graded yet
8.0
profesionalreview.com
✓ explicit
26 de noviembre de 2019
Hands-on test · Mini media PC
Verdict
The AMD Athlon 3000G suits small media PCs, playing 4K video smoothly and overclocking on B450 boards, but 3D gaming remains weak.
7.0
geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
19 de noviembre de 2019
Hands-on test · Overclocking and gaming
Verdict
The AMD Athlon 3000G suits office and media PCs, overclocks to 4 GHz, and runs light esports games, but PUBG and modern titles struggle.
8.0
androidpc.es
≈ estimated
10/01/2020
Hands-on test · Built-in graphics
Verdict
The AMD Athlon 3000G is a low-power dual-core chip whose Vega 3 graphics run light games at 1080p, suiting small home PCs and media boxes.
7.0
hwupgrade.it
≈ estimated
19/11/2019
Lab test · Dual-core chip
Verdict
The AMD Athlon 3000G is a low-power dual-core chip that handles office work and web tasks, but its two cores hold back demanding multi-core work.
6.0
tweakers.net
≈ estimated
19/11/2019
Benchmark review · Budget APU
Verdict
The AMD Athlon 3000G is an unlocked budget chip suited to browsing and office work, but its two cores and weak built-in graphics hold back gaming.
8.0
ct.nl
≈ estimated
11/03/2020
Benchmark test · Office PC chip
Verdict
The AMD Athlon 3000G suits office PCs, running about 20 percent faster than the Athlon 240GE in Cinebench R20, though a 42 W power limit caps its graphics gains.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Athlon 3000G

  • Excellent value for budget-conscious builders
  • Includes integrated Radeon Vega 3 graphics, eliminating the need for a dedicated GPU for basic tasks
  • Unlocked multiplier allows for easy overclocking of both CPU and GPU
  • Very low power consumption and heat output, making it ideal for small form factor (SFF) or HTPC builds
  • Capable of handling basic productivity, web browsing, and 720p gaming on older or lighter titles
  • Compatible with the widely supported AM4 motherboard platform

What customers don't like about AMD Athlon 3000G

  • Dual-core architecture limits performance in modern, multi-threaded applications and multitasking
  • Unsuitable for serious modern gaming; struggles with newer titles even at low settings
  • Performance is only a marginal improvement over its predecessor, the Athlon 200GE
  • Lacks boost clock functionality, running at a fixed base frequency unless overclocked
  • Limited support on high-end X570 motherboards
  • Older architecture (Zen+) compared to newer Ryzen offerings that provide significantly better value for slightly more money

Verdict

The AMD Athlon 3000G is a budget-friendly entry-level processor featuring 2 cores and 4 threads with a base clock frequency of 3.5 GHz and a 35W TDP. Built on a 14nm Zen-based architecture for the AM4 socket, it includes integrated Radeon Vega 3 graphics clocked at 1100 MHz and 4MB of L3 cache. Its main advantages include a highly affordable price point, extremely low power consumption, and an unlocked multiplier that allows for both CPU and GPU overclocking, making it an excellent choice for basic office tasks, home media servers, or very light eSports gaming. However, its performance is strictly limited to basic workloads, struggles significantly with modern gaming or 4K video playback, and lacks compatibility with certain high-end chipsets like the X570.

Compare AMD Athlon 3000G with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD Athlon 3000G and other processors

No results found