
Athlon 64 3000+

Celeron 440
Athlon 64 3000+ vs Celeron 440 Performance Spectrum
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 3000+ vs Celeron 440 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.

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Valorant

Among Us

Apex Legends

ARC Raiders

Baldur's Gate 3

Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
Athlon 64 3000+ vs Celeron 440: 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 3000+
2001Why buy it
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron 440 across 46 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (450 vs 472).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 3.0 vs 8.0 PassMark/$ ($149 MSRP vs $59 MSRP).
- ❌154.3% higher power demand at 89W vs 35W.
Celeron 440
2007Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +8.7% higher average FPS across 46 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $90 less on MSRP ($59 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 164.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 8.0 vs 3.0 PassMark/$ ($59 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 35W instead of 89W, a 54W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.
Quick Answers
So, is Celeron 440 better than Athlon 64 3000+?
Which one is better for gaming?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Athlon 64 3000+ vs Celeron 440 Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Athlon 64 3000+
The Athlon 64 3000+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Janeiro 2001 (24 years ago). It is based on the Clawhammer (2001−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 754. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 450 points. Launch price was $65.

Celeron 440
The Celeron 440 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 June 2007 (18 years ago). It is based on the Conroe-L (2007−2008) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 472 points. Launch price was $40.
Processing Power
Both the Athlon 64 3000+ and Celeron 440 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Athlon 64 3000+ versus 2 GHz on the Celeron 440 — identical boost frequencies. The Athlon 64 3000+ uses the Clawhammer (2001−2005) architecture (130 nm), while the Celeron 440 uses Conroe-L (2007−2008) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 3000+ scores 450 against the Celeron 440's 472 — a 4.8% lead for the Celeron 440. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.
| Feature | Athlon 64 3000+ | Celeron 440 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 1 / 1 | 1 / 1 |
| Boost Clock | 2 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Base Clock | — | 2 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 512K | 512 kB |
| Process | 130 nm | 65 nm-50% |
| Architecture | Clawhammer (2001−2005) | Conroe-L (2007−2008) |
| PassMark | 450 | 472+5% |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 244 |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon 64 3000+ uses the 754 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron 440 uses LGA775 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR-400 on the Athlon 64 3000+ versus DDR2-800 on the Celeron 440 — the Celeron 440 supports -300% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 4 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: AMD 939 (Athlon 64 3000+) and 945,G31,G41 (Celeron 440).
| Feature | Athlon 64 3000+ | Celeron 440 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | 754 | LGA775 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 1.1 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR-400 | DDR2-800 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | No | No |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: not specified (Athlon 64 3000+) / No (Celeron 440). Primary use case: Celeron 440 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 440 rivals Pentium 4 2.80.
| Feature | Athlon 64 3000+ | Celeron 440 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | — | No |
| AVX-512 | — | No |
| Virtualization | — | No |
| Target Use | — | Budget |
Value Analysis
At launch, the Athlon 64 3000+ was priced at $149, while the Celeron 440 came in at $59. On launch pricing ($149 vs $59), Celeron 440 was $90 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 3000+ delivers 3.0 pts/$ vs 8.0 pts/$ for the Celeron 440 — making the Celeron 440 the 90.4% better value option.
| Feature | Athlon 64 3000+ | Celeron 440 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149 | $59-60% |
| Performance per Dollar | 3.0 | 8.0+167% |
| Release Date | 2001 | 2007 |
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.
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
















