CPU
GPU
Athlon 64 2000+
Celeron 2.30
Performance Spectrum - CPU
About PassMark
PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Athlon 64 2000+ is positioned at rank 1088 and the Celeron 2.30 is on rank 1092, so the Athlon 64 2000+ offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Athlon 64 2000+
Performance Per Dollar Celeron 2.30
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon 64 2000+ | Celeron 2.30 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($20) | ✅ More affordable ($10) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Lima (2008−2009) / 65 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Northwood (2002−2004) / 130 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon 64 2000+ | Celeron 2.30 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+97%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($20) | ✅ More affordable ($10) |
Performance Check
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Athlon 64 2000+ and Celeron 2.30
Athlon 64 2000+
The Athlon 64 2000+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Lima (2008−2009) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: AM2. Thermal design power (TDP): 8 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 330 points. Launch price was $149.
Celeron 2.30
The Celeron 2.30 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Northwood (2002−2004) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.3 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 128 kB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 73 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 325 points. Launch price was $69.
Processing Power
Both the Athlon 64 2000+ and Celeron 2.30 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1 GHz on the Athlon 64 2000+ versus 2.3 GHz on the Celeron 2.30 — a 78.8% clock advantage for the Celeron 2.30. The Athlon 64 2000+ uses the Lima (2008−2009) architecture (65 nm), while the Celeron 2.30 uses Northwood (2002−2004) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 2000+ scores 330 against the Celeron 2.30's 325 — a 1.5% lead for the Athlon 64 2000+. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.
| Feature | Athlon 64 2000+ | Celeron 2.30 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 1 / 1 | 1 / 1 |
| Boost Clock | 1 GHz | 2.3 GHz+130% |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 512 kB+300% | 128 kB |
| Process | 65 nm-50% | 130 nm |
| Architecture | Lima (2008−2009) | Northwood (2002−2004) |
| PassMark | 330+2% | 325 |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon 64 2000+ uses the AM2 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 2.30 uses PGA478 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-400 on the Athlon 64 2000+ versus DDR1-400 on the Celeron 2.30 — the Athlon 64 2000+ supports 66.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Athlon 64 2000+ supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 120% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Athlon 64 2000+) vs 1 (Celeron 2.30). PCIe lanes: 16 (Athlon 64 2000+) vs 0 (Celeron 2.30) — the Athlon 64 2000+ offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD AM2 (Athlon 64 2000+) and 845,850,865 (Celeron 2.30).
| Feature | Athlon 64 2000+ | Celeron 2.30 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | AM2 | PGA478 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0+82% | PCIe 1.1 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR2-400+100% | DDR1-400 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 16 GB+300% | 4 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2+100% | 1 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: not specified (Athlon 64 2000+) / No (Celeron 2.30). Primary use case: Celeron 2.30 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 2.30 rivals Pentium 4 2.40.
| Feature | Athlon 64 2000+ | Celeron 2.30 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | — | No |
| AVX-512 | — | No |
| Virtualization | — | No |
| Target Use | — | Budget |
Value Analysis
The Athlon 64 2000+ launched at $100 MSRP, while the Celeron 2.30 debuted at $100. At current prices ($20 vs $10), the Celeron 2.30 is $10 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 2000+ delivers 16.5 pts/$ vs 32.5 pts/$ for the Celeron 2.30 — making the Celeron 2.30 the 65.3% better value option.
| Feature | Athlon 64 2000+ | Celeron 2.30 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $100 | $100 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $20 | $10-50% |
| Performance per Dollar | 16.5 | 32.5+97% |
| Release Date | 2008 | 2003 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Athlon 64 2000+ and Celeron 2.30
