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 Silver PRO 3125GE review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£60PassMark multi-core score:4633N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:N/A GHzCPU socket:AM4TDP (Thermal design power):35 W

AMD Athlon Silver PRO 3125GE Review: Compare 74 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

5.9/10

Overall score

Score
5.9/ 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 78% of models
Score components

40%

3.9

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.2, the mark of a weaker model in this category

25%

?

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

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 78% of processors
7.2

Value for money

Value for money
7.2/ 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 60% of models
Score components

70%

5.9

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 60%
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 87% of models
Score components

60%

2.9

Performance

18%

4.4

Architecture

10%

4.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.6

Power & Thermal

4%

8.2

Platform

1%

6.8

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 87%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
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
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.2.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

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
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £60
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 Silver PRO 3125GE

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 87% of models
Score components:

60%

2.9

Performance

18%

4.4

Architecture

10%

4.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.6

Power & Thermal

4%

8.2

Platform

1%

6.8

Integrated graphics

3.9
Reviews score
7.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.2/ 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 60% of models
Score components:

70%

5.9

Overall score

30%

10

Price

7.2
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, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES instruction sets, which is narrower support than 54.4% of processors and equal to that of 3.4% 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 3.4 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 2x3.4 GHz which is lower than that of 79.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
4,633
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 4,633 in PassMark, which is lower than 75% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
12 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 12 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 48% of processors and equal to that of 2.7% of processors.
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 12 nm
This processor is built on the GlobalFoundries 12 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 48.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.8% 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)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 64 GB of memory, which is more than 27.2% of processors and equal to 26.1% 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.265 (HW decode/encode)
This processor supports H.265 (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 71.9% of processors and equal to 0.2% of processors.
Show more
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
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
cTDP: 35 W
Show more

AMD Athlon Silver PRO 3125GE vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 4.17x cheaper
    AMD Athlon Silver PRO 3125GE is cheaper than the average processor (£60 vs £250).
    £60 vs £250
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (GlobalFoundries 12 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    GlobalFoundries 12 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 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
  • 4.17x cheaper
    AMD Athlon Silver PRO 3125GE is cheaper than the average processor (£60 vs £250).
    £60 vs £250
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (AM4 vs FP5).
    AM4 vs FP5
  • 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 12 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    GlobalFoundries 12 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.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 59.6% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (4,633 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    4,633 vs 11,469
  • 50.4% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (761 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    761 vs 1,535
  • 64.9% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (983 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    983 vs 2,804.5
  • 53.8% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (2,409 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    2,409 vs 5,209
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Picasso vs Kaby Lake).
    Picasso vs Kaby Lake
  • 18.9% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2074 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,074 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
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Memory Guard, Secure Processor, Secure Boot, GMET vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Memory Guard, Secure Processor, Secure Boot, GMET vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 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
  • 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
  • 59.6% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (4,633 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    4,633 vs 11,469
  • 50.4% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (761 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    761 vs 1,535
  • 64.9% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (983 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    983 vs 2,804.5
  • 53.8% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (2,409 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    2,409 vs 5,209
  • 18.9% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2074 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,074 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 (2x3.4 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x3.4 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • No speed boosting
    This processor does not support automatic speed boosting, while the average processor does. 87.7% of processors offer this.
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Picasso vs Kaby Lake).
    Picasso 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
  • 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
  • 18.6% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (210 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    210 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 8 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (8 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    8 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.265 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.265 (HW decode/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
  • 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

Shop video

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Athlon Silver PRO 3125GE

  • Low power consumption with a 35W TDP, making it energy efficient and cool-running.
  • Integrated Radeon Vega 3 graphics allow for basic display and light media tasks without a discrete GPU.
  • Reliable for basic office work, web browsing, and simple tasks like running a Minecraft server or NAS.
  • Supports ECC memory, which is beneficial for mission-critical systems and data integrity.
  • Affordable entry-level option for budget builds or older office PC upgrades.

What customers don't like about AMD Athlon Silver PRO 3125GE

  • Limited multitasking performance due to having only 2 cores and 4 threads.
  • Unsuitable for modern gaming or high-demand applications, struggling with recent releases.
  • Locked multiplier prevents easy overclocking to gain extra performance.
  • Older architecture (Zen Dali) that is no longer competitive with current-generation budget CPUs.
  • Reported performance degradation over time with some users experiencing lag during video playback.

Verdict

The AMD Athlon Silver PRO 3125GE is a dual-core, four-thread desktop processor based on the Zen+ architecture and built on a 12nm process for the AM4 socket. It features a base and maximum boost clock speed of 3.4 GHz, 4MB of L3 cache, and integrated Radeon Graphics with a base frequency of 1100 MHz. Its primary advantages include a low 35W TDP for high energy efficiency, support for DDR4 memory up to 2667 MHz, and professional-grade security features like AMD GuardMI and Memory Guard. However, it is primarily limited by its older dual-core configuration, which makes it less competitive for modern gaming or heavy multitasking compared to newer multi-core alternatives.

Compare AMD Athlon Silver PRO 3125GE 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 Silver PRO 3125GE and other processors

No results found