Athlon 64 2600+ vs Celeron 2.70
Athlon 64 2600+
Celeron 2.70
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 2600+ is positioned at rank 1080 and the Celeron 2.70 is on rank 1025, so the Celeron 2.70 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 2600+
Performance Per Dollar Celeron 2.70
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon 64 2600+ | Celeron 2.70 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($5) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($49) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Lima (2008−2009) / 65 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Northwood (2002−2004) / 130 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon 64 2600+ | Celeron 2.70 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+842%) | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($5) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($49) |
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 2600+ and Celeron 2.70
Athlon 64 2600+
The Athlon 64 2600+ 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: 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: AM2. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 392 points. Launch price was $149.
Celeron 2.70
The Celeron 2.70 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: 2.7 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: 408 points. Launch price was $69.
Processing Power
Both the Athlon 64 2600+ and Celeron 2.70 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.6 GHz on the Athlon 64 2600+ versus 2.7 GHz on the Celeron 2.70 — a 51.2% clock advantage for the Celeron 2.70. The Athlon 64 2600+ uses the Lima (2008−2009) architecture (65 nm), while the Celeron 2.70 uses Northwood (2002−2004) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 2600+ scores 392 against the Celeron 2.70's 408 — a 4% lead for the Celeron 2.70. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.
| Feature | Athlon 64 2600+ | Celeron 2.70 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 1 / 1 | 1 / 1 |
| Boost Clock | 1.6 GHz | 2.7 GHz+69% |
| 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 | 392 | 408+4% |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon 64 2600+ uses the AM2 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 2.70 uses PGA478 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-667 on the Athlon 64 2600+ versus DDR1-400 on the Celeron 2.70 — the Athlon 64 2600+ supports 66.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Athlon 64 2600+ supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 120% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Athlon 64 2600+) vs 1 (Celeron 2.70). Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: AMD AM2 (Athlon 64 2600+) and 845,848,865,875 (Celeron 2.70).
| Feature | Athlon 64 2600+ | Celeron 2.70 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | AM2 | PGA478 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0+82% | PCIe 1.1 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR2-667+100% | DDR1-400 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 16 GB+300% | 4 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2+100% | 1 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: not specified (Athlon 64 2600+) / No (Celeron 2.70). Primary use case: Celeron 2.70 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 2.70 rivals Pentium 4 2.80.
| Feature | Athlon 64 2600+ | Celeron 2.70 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | — | No |
| AVX-512 | — | No |
| Virtualization | — | No |
| Target Use | — | Budget |
Value Analysis
The Athlon 64 2600+ launched at $100 MSRP, while the Celeron 2.70 debuted at $49. At current prices ($5 vs $49), the Athlon 64 2600+ is $44 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 2600+ delivers 78.4 pts/$ vs 8.3 pts/$ for the Celeron 2.70 — making the Athlon 64 2600+ the 161.6% better value option.
| Feature | Athlon 64 2600+ | Celeron 2.70 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $100 | $49-51% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $5-90% | $49 |
| Performance per Dollar | 78.4+845% | 8.3 |
| 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 2600+ and Celeron 2.70
