Athlon 64 2000+ vs Celeron 2.40

Athlon 64 2000+ vs Celeron 2.40 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 2000+

1 / 1

330

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Ryzen Threadripper 7970X

Celeron 2.40

1 / 1

345

+4.5%

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.

Athlon 64 2000+ vs Celeron 2.40 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Athlon 64 2000+ vs Celeron 2.40: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Athlon 64 2000+

2008

Why buy it

✅Draws 8W instead of 73W, a 65W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron 2.40 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (330 vs 345).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 3.3 vs 5.0 PassMark/$ ($100 MSRP vs $69 MSRP).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Celeron 2.40.

Celeron 2.40

2003

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +12.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $31 less on MSRP ($69 MSRP vs $100 MSRP).
✅Delivers 51.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 5.0 vs 3.3 PassMark/$ ($69 MSRP vs $100 MSRP).
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Stock Cooler), unlike Athlon 64 2000+.

Trade-offs

❌812.5% higher power demand at 73W vs 8W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 2.40 better than Athlon 64 2000+?

Yes. Celeron 2.40 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 12.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 4.5% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron 2.40 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 12.5% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 2.40 is the stronger fit. You are getting 4.5% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Celeron 2.40 is the better buy right now. Celeron 2.40 comes in $31 cheaper on MSRP at $69 MSRP versus $100 MSRP, and it still gives you a 12.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 51.5% better value on MSRP (5.0 vs 3.3 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Athlon 64 2000+ makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2008 vs 2003). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Athlon 64 2000+ vs Celeron 2.40 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

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 2.40

The Celeron 2.40 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the NetBurst (2000−2006) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.4 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: 345 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Athlon 64 2000+ and Celeron 2.40 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1 GHz on the Athlon 64 2000+ versus 2.4 GHz on the Celeron 2.40 — a 82.4% clock advantage for the Celeron 2.40. The Athlon 64 2000+ uses the Lima (2008−2009) architecture (65 nm), while the Celeron 2.40 uses NetBurst (2000−2006) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 2000+ scores 330 against the Celeron 2.40's 345 — a 4.4% lead for the Celeron 2.40. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Athlon 64 2000+	Celeron 2.40
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1 GHz	2.4 GHz+140%
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB+300%	128 kB
Process	65 nm-50%	130 nm
Architecture	Lima (2008−2009)	NetBurst (2000−2006)
PassMark	330	345+5%
Geekbench 6 Single	—	150
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	150

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 64 2000+ uses the AM2 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 2.40 uses PGA478 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-400 on the Athlon 64 2000+ versus DDR1-333 on the Celeron 2.40 — the Athlon 64 2000+ supports 20.1% 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 2 GB — 700% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Athlon 64 2000+) vs 1 (Celeron 2.40). PCIe lanes: 16 (Athlon 64 2000+) vs 0 (Celeron 2.40) — the Athlon 64 2000+ offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD AM2 (Athlon 64 2000+) and Intel 845,Intel 865 (Celeron 2.40).

Feature	Athlon 64 2000+	Celeron 2.40
Socket	AM2	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0+82%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-400+20%	DDR1-333
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+700%	2 GB
RAM Channels	2+100%	1
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Athlon 64 2000+) / None (Celeron 2.40). Primary use case: Celeron 2.40 targets Legacy Desktop. Direct competitor: Celeron 2.40 rivals Pentium 4 2.40.

Feature	Athlon 64 2000+	Celeron 2.40
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	No
Virtualization	—	None
Target Use	—	Legacy Desktop

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Athlon 64 2000+ was priced at $100, while the Celeron 2.40 came in at $69. On launch pricing ($100 vs $69), Celeron 2.40 was $31 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 2000+ delivers 3.3 pts/$ vs 5.0 pts/$ for the Celeron 2.40 — making the Celeron 2.40 the 41% better value option.

Feature	Athlon 64 2000+	Celeron 2.40
MSRP	$100	$69-31%
Performance per Dollar	3.3	5.0+52%
Release Date	2008	2003

Search Athlon 64 2000+ on Amazon

Search Celeron 2.40 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.