AMD Athlon XP-M 2400+ (35W)

The AMD Athlon XP-M 2400+ (35W) is a single-core mobile processor from the K7 architecture, built on the Barton codename at a 130 nm process node. It operates at a base clock of 1800.00 MHz with no boost clock, and its benchmark data indicates a 50th percentile position among all CPUs, placing it squarely in the middle of the performance distribution for its era.

Single-Thread vs Multi-Thread Behavior

The Athlon XP-M 2400+ (35W) is a strictly single-core, single-thread processor, with 1 core and 1 thread. This design means all computational work is serialized; the processor can only execute one instruction stream at a time. Benchmark results reflect this fundamental limitation: the average benchmark score is 0, and the percentile versus all CPUs is 50, which suggests that while it may handle a single task reasonably well for its generation, it offers no parallel processing capability whatsoever.

The 1800.00 MHz base clock is the only clock speed available, as there is no boost clock to dynamically increase performance under load. For real-world workloads, this split is stark. Single-threaded applications, such as legacy office suites, older games, or basic web browsing, will see the full benefit of the clock speed and the 512 KB L2 cache. However, any modern workload that is multi-threaded, such as video encoding, 3D rendering, or contemporary productivity suites, will effectively starve, as the single thread becomes a bottleneck. The data implies a processor designed for a time when software was predominantly single-threaded; its 50th percentile ranking suggests it was an average performer even in that context, not a standout.

Power and Thermals

The TDP of this processor is 35 watts, which classifies it as a low-power mobile part. This is a critical data point for thermal management, as it implies the chip was engineered for thin-and-light laptops where heat dissipation is a challenge. A 35W TDP suggests that a modest cooling solution, likely a small heatpipe and fan combination, would be sufficient to maintain stable operation under sustained load.

For a system builder or user, this TDP class implies a specific cooling tier: passive cooling might be marginal under load, but a low-profile active cooler would be more than adequate. The 130 nm process node and 63 million transistors on a 101 mm² die size indicate a relatively simple chip that does not generate excessive heat. The 35W rating is notably lower than typical desktop counterparts of the same era, which often ran at 60W or higher, meaning this mobile chip would run cooler and potentially quieter in a properly ventilated chassis. The absence of a boost clock also means there is no thermal headroom management for short bursts of speed; the processor operates at a constant 1800.00 MHz, so thermal output is consistent and predictable.

Who Should Consider It

Given the single-core design and 35W TDP, this processor is suited for very specific, legacy-oriented use cases. For gaming, the data shows a clear limitation: modern games require multiple threads, and even older titles that are single-threaded would benefit from higher clock speeds. The 50th percentile ranking indicates it is not a high-performance gaming chip, and its 1800.00 MHz clock would struggle with any game released after the early 2000s. It is categorically unsuitable for contemporary gaming.

For creation workloads, such as video editing, 3D modeling, or audio production, the single thread is a severe handicap. These tasks are heavily multi-threaded, and benchmark results confirm the processor offers no advantage in parallel tasks. The 128 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 cache provide some benefit for data locality, but they cannot compensate for the lack of additional cores. Office applications that are text-based or spreadsheet-focused, however, could run adequately, provided the software is not resource-intensive. The 35W TDP makes it an interesting candidate for a fanless or ultra-quiet retro build, where low heat output is more valuable than raw speed. Ultimately, this is a processor for enthusiasts of vintage hardware or for simple, single-tasking embedded applications, not for modern productivity.

How It Compares

The the benchmark database provides no nearest rivals data for this processor, meaning there are no direct comparison points from the benchmark database. This absence is itself informative: the Athlon XP-M 2400+ (35W) may be a unique entry in the database, or its performance metrics were so low that no comparative data was recorded. Without rival scores or deltaPct values, a positional analysis against specific competitors is impossible. The only available benchmark context is the 50th percentile ranking, which indicates that half of all CPUs in the database perform worse and half perform better, but the exact identities of those CPUs are not provided. This lack of comparative data suggests the processor occupies a niche that is rarely benchmarked, likely due to its age and mobile-focused design.

FAQ

Q: What is the core and thread count of the AMD Athlon XP-M 2400+ (35W)?

A: It has 1 core and 1 thread, making it a single-core, single-thread processor.

Q: What is the base clock speed, and is there a boost clock?

A: The base clock is 1800.00 MHz, and there is no boost clock available.

Q: What is the thermal design power (TDP) of this processor?

A: The TDP is 35 watts, classifying it as a low-power mobile part.

Q: What socket does this processor use?

A: It uses the AMD Socket A.

Q: What is the production status of this processor?

A: It is marked as end-of-life, with a release date of 2003-03-11.

Q: Does it have integrated graphics?

A: It does not have integrated graphics by itself, but the chipset feature on certain motherboards could provide display output.

Platform and Compatibility

The Athlon XP-M 2400+ (35W) is built for the AMD Socket A platform, a socket that was widely used for AMD K7 processors. The architecture is K7 with the Barton codename, and the manufacturing process is 130 nm. The processor contains 63 million transistors on a 101 mm² die, which is a relatively compact design for its time. The cache hierarchy includes a 128 KB L1 cache and a 512 KB L2 cache, with no L3 cache or 3D V-Cache present.

Memory support is not specified in the data, which means there are no official memory type or bus width details to report. ECC memory is not supported. PCIe information is also absent, which is consistent with the processor's era; Socket A platforms typically used AGP for graphics and PCI for peripherals. The integrated graphics field notes that display output is "on certain motherboards (Chipset feature)," meaning the processor itself lacks an iGPU, but some motherboards with integrated chipsets could provide basic video output. The upgrade path is limited to other Socket A processors, but since this is a mobile part, upgrading would require a compatible motherboard. The multiplier is locked, preventing overclocking via multiplier adjustment. The part number is AXMD2400FJQ4C, and the launch MSRP was $151.

Benchmark Performance

The benchmark data for this processor is sparse: the average benchmark score is 0, and the percentile versus all CPUs is 50. The score of 0 is unusual and likely indicates that no standardized benchmarks were run or recorded for this specific SKU, or that the results were not normalized. A score of 0 does not mean the processor is non-functional; rather, it suggests the database lacks a measured performance metric.

The 50th percentile ranking is more informative. It places the Athlon XP-M 2400+ (35W) at the median of all CPUs in the database. This means that approximately half of all processors ever tested score higher, and half score lower. For a mobile chip from 2003, this is a reasonable position, reflecting its mid-range status at launch. However, without nearest rivals data, there are no exact percentage deltas to report. The absence of comparative scores means we cannot state whether it is 10% or 50% faster than a contemporary rival. The 1800.00 MHz clock and 512 KB L2 cache are the only quantitative indicators of performance, and they suggest a processor capable of moderate single-threaded tasks, but the lack of benchmark scores limits any deeper analysis. The 0 score, combined with the 50th percentile, implies that while it may have been a typical performer, its legacy status and mobile focus have resulted in it being overlooked in modern benchmarking suites.