OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v1.0
Processors Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Processors Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Processors Methodology v1.0

AMD Athlon 300U Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£35PassMark benchmark result:3833N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:3.3 GHzCPU socket:FP5TDP (Thermal design power):15 W

AMD Athlon 300U Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

4.6

Overall score

Score
4.6/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the processor's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best processors on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 73% of models
Score components

90%

4.6

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–¼Worse than 73% of processors
4.6

Technical score

Technical score
4.6/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
Score components

60%

4.0

Performance

18%

4.5

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.7

Power & Thermal

4%

8.0

Platform

1%

6.4

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 68% of processors
?

User score

User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £35

Best rankings

Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Athlon 300U

Technical score
Technical score
4.6/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
Score components:

60%

4.0

Performance

18%

4.5

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.7

Power & Thermal

4%

8.0

Platform

1%

6.4

Integrated Graphics

4.6
User score
User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

?
Popularity
Popularity
1.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
AMD Athlon 300U has a popularity score of 1 point, which is higher than that of 0% of products in this category.
1.0
Value for money
Value for money
6.2/ 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–¼ Worse than 68% of models
Score components:

60%

4.6

Overall score

40%

10

Price

6.2
Brand name
AMD
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
â–¼ Worse than 44% of models
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 7.3% of processors and equal to that of 48.6% of processors.
CPU socket
FP5
CPU socket
FP5
â–¼ Worse than 57% of models
This processor uses the FP5 CPU socket, which is older than that of 57.2% of processors and equal to that of 3.3% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
â–² Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
2
N. of physical cores
2
â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 2 CPU cores, which is fewer than 79.3% of processors and equal to 20.6% of processors.
CPU threads
4
CPU threads
4
â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 4 CPU threads, which is fewer than 67.4% of processors and equal to 26.5% of processors.
Threads per core
2
Threads per core
2
â–² Better than 30% of models
Market range: <0 – >2.5
This processor offers 2 threads per core, which is more than 30.3% of processors and equal to 69.7% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
3.3 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
3.3 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.3 GHz which is lower than that of 86.6% of processors and equal to that of 2.5% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
2x 2.4 GHz
CPU base clock speed
2x 2.4 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
This processor has a base clock of 2x2.4 GHz which is lower than that of 88.7% of processors and equal to that of 1.4% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Semiconductor size
14 nm
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 50.6% of processors and equal to that of 33.9% of processors.
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 14 nm
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 14 nm
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
This processor is built on the GlobalFoundries 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 50.8% of processors and equal to that of 4.4% of processors.
L3 cache
4 MB
L3 cache
4 MB
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 4 MB which is smaller than that of 70.2% of processors and equal to that of 14.6% of processors.
L2 cache
1 MB
L2 cache
1 MB
â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 1 MB which is smaller than that of 66.9% of processors and equal to that of 17.7% of processors.
L1 cache
192 KB
L1 cache
192 KB
â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 192 KB which is smaller than that of 79.1% of processors and equal to that of 2.3% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4
DDR memory version
DDR4
â–¼ Worse than 42% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 26.3% of processors and equal to that of 31.7% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,400 MHz
Maximum memory speed
2,400 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,400 MHz, which is lower than that of 63% of processors and equal to 12.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2400 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2400 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2400 MHz, which is lower than that of 66.4% of processors and equal to 11.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
â–¼ Worse than 44% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 64 GB of memory, which is more than 28.4% of processors and equal to 27.5% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
â–² Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Radeon Vega 3
Integrated GPU model
Radeon Vega 3
Integrated GPU model
Radeon Vega 3
â–² Better than 67% of models
This processor uses the Radeon Vega 3 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 66.5% of processors and equal to that in 1.7% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
3
Integrated GPU execution units
3
â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 3 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 93.1% of processors and equal to 2.5% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 58.1% of processors and equal to that of 37.9% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode)
â–² Better than 56% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 56.2% of processors and equal to 9.5% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
â–² Better than 78% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 15 W which is lower than that of 78% of processors and equal to that of 16% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
15 W
Base power (PL1)
15 W
â–² Better than 77% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 15 W which is lower than that of 77.2% of processors and equal to that of 16.3% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
yes
Configurable TDP
yes
â–² Better than 47% of models
This processor supports configurable TDP. 47.3% of processors support configurable TDP.
cTDP: 12 W
Show more

AMD Athlon 300U vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 99% faster Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    771.41
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (771.4 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    771.41 vs 387.66
  • 66.7% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 5 °C higher TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    105 °C
    â–² Better than 84% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a higher TJ Max than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • Broader instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V
    â–² Better than 85% of models
    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).
    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
  • Includes crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    AES, SHA, RSA/PKA
    â–² Better than 84% of models
    This processor includes crypto acceleration, the average processor does not. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
    AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA
  • 7.14x cheaper
    AMD Athlon 300U is cheaper than the average processor (£35 vs £250).
    £35 vs £250
  • 16.7% more L3 per core
    L3 per core
    2 MB/core
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 7.14x cheaper
    AMD Athlon 300U is cheaper than the average processor (£35 vs £250).
    £35 vs £250
  • Broader instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V
    â–² Better than 85% of models
    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).
    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
  • Includes crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    AES, SHA, RSA/PKA
    â–² Better than 84% of models
    This processor includes crypto acceleration, the average processor does not. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
    AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA
  • 99% faster Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    771.41
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (771.4 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    771.41 vs 387.66
  • 16.7% more L3 per core
    L3 per core
    2 MB/core
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 16.4% smaller die size
    Die size
    148 mm²
    â–² Better than 64% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    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
  • 66.7% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 5 °C higher TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    105 °C
    â–² Better than 84% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a higher TJ Max than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    2
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 63.7% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    3,833
    â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,833 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,833 vs 10,572.5
  • 23.3% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.3 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.3 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.3 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 69% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    866
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (866 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    866 vs 2,791
  • 30.2% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,744
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,744 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,744 vs 2,500
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Raven Ridge
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Raven Ridge vs Kaby Lake).
    Raven Ridge vs Kaby Lake
  • 37% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    308
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (308 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    308 vs 489
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    2 x 2.4 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x2.4 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    2x2.4 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 5.7% worse value for money
    AMD Athlon 300U has worse value for money than the average processor (6.21 vs 6.6).
    6.21 vs 6.56
  • Older TPM support
    TPM type
    fTPM 2.0
    â–¼ Worse than 59% of models
    This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (fTPM 2 vs PTT 2).
    fTPM 2.0 vs PTT 2.0
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    2
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 63.7% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    3,833
    â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,833 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,833 vs 10,572.5
  • 23.3% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.3 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.3 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.3 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 69% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    866
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (866 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    866 vs 2,791
  • 30.2% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,744
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,744 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,744 vs 2,500
  • 37% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    308
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (308 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    308 vs 489
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    2 x 2.4 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x2.4 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    2x2.4 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    CPU threads
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    4 vs 8
  • 50% lower bus transfer rate
    Bus transfer rate
    4 GT/s
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <4 GT/s – >19 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Raven Ridge
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Raven Ridge vs Kaby Lake).
    Raven Ridge vs Kaby Lake
  • 16.7% larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    14 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    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
  • 60% smaller L2 cache
    L2 cache
    1 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    1 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 50% smaller L1 cache
    L1 cache
    192 KB
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    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
  • 50% smaller L3 cache
    L3 cache
    4 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    4 MB vs 8 MB
  • 21.8% lower memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    35.8 GB/s
    â–¼ Worse than 73% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (35.8 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    35.8 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    DDR4-2400 MHz
    â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2400 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR4-2,400 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 18.2% lower memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    2,400 MHz
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2400 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    2,400 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • 87.5% fewer GPU execution units
    Integrated GPU execution units
    3
    â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
    Market range: <6 – >64
    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
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode)
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
  • 5 °C higher CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    105 °C
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a higher CPU temperature than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C

Video reviews

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

7.0
RandomGaminginHD
≈ estimated
03/11/2019
Hands-on review · gaming and productivity tests
Verdict
AMD Athlon 300U handles light gaming and office work, but demanding games need lower settings and resolution.
8.0
The Woxs
≈ estimated
17/04/2020
Unboxing · first look at build, ports and setup
Verdict
AMD Athlon 300U looks good for the price, with a solid build and decent keyboard, though little testing is shown.
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict

Third-party reviews

What we like about AMD Athlon 300U

  • Excellent value for budget-conscious users and entry-level laptops
  • Sufficient performance for everyday tasks like web browsing and document editing
  • Low power consumption (15W TDP) leads to better battery life in thin laptops
  • Integrated Radeon Vega 3 graphics can handle light gaming and 4K video playback
  • Better multi-threaded performance than older dual-core chips due to SMT (4 threads)

What we don't like about AMD Athlon 300U

  • Limited to only 2 physical cores, which restricts heavy multitasking
  • Underwhelming for modern or competitive gaming; struggles with newer titles
  • Quickly becomes a bottleneck if paired with low RAM (e.g., 4GB)
  • Significant performance gap compared to slightly more expensive Ryzen 3 or Core i3 options
  • Lacks an unlocked multiplier, meaning it cannot be easily overclocked for extra performance

Verdict

The AMD Athlon 300U is an entry-level mobile processor released in 2019, featuring 2 Zen architecture cores and 4 threads via Simultaneous Multithreading. It operates at a base clock speed of 2.4 GHz with a boost capability up to 3.3 GHz, supported by 4 MB of L3 cache and a low 15W TDP designed for thin laptops. Its main pros include integrated Radeon Vega 3 graphics capable of handling light esports gaming and support for up to 64GB of DDR4-2400 memory and ECC. However, its primary cons are its aging 14nm process, lack of an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, and limited performance that struggles with modern, demanding applications or high-end gaming.

Compare AMD Athlon 300U 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 300U and other processors

No results found