Athlon 64 3000+ vs Celeron 560

Athlon 64 3000+ vs Celeron 560 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 3000+

1 / 1

450

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron 560

475

+5.6%

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 560 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 3000+ vs Celeron 560: 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+

2001

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron 560 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (450 vs 475).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 3.0 vs 5.3 PassMark/$ ($149 MSRP vs $89 MSRP).
❌187.1% higher power demand at 89W vs 31W.

Celeron 560

2008

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +8.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $60 less on MSRP ($89 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
✅Delivers 76.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 5.3 vs 3.0 PassMark/$ ($89 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
✅Draws 31W instead of 89W, a 58W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 560 better than Athlon 64 3000+?

Yes. Celeron 560 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 8.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 5.6% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron 560 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 8.7% 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 560 is the stronger fit. You are getting 5.6% better PassMark.

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

Celeron 560 is the better buy right now. Celeron 560 comes in $60 cheaper on MSRP at $89 MSRP versus $149 MSRP, and it still gives you a 8.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 76.7% better value on MSRP (5.3 vs 3.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Celeron 560 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2008 vs 2001). That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Athlon 64 3000+ vs Celeron 560 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 560

The Celeron 560 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. Base frequency: 2.13 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 31 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 475 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Athlon 64 3000+ is built on the Clawhammer (2001−2005) architecture. In PassMark, the Athlon 64 3000+ scores 450 against the Celeron 560's 475 — a 5.4% lead for the Celeron 560. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon 64 3000+ vs 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron 560.

Feature	Athlon 64 3000+	Celeron 560
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	—
Boost Clock	2 GHz	—
Base Clock	—	2.13 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	1 MB L2 Cache
L2 Cache	512K	—
Process	130 nm	65 nm-50%
Architecture	Clawhammer (2001−2005)	—
PassMark	450	475+6%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 64 3000+ uses the 754 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron 560 uses PGA478 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR-400 on the Athlon 64 3000+ versus DDR2-667 on the Celeron 560 — the Celeron 560 supports -266.8% 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 Santa Rosa (Celeron 560).

Feature	Athlon 64 3000+	Celeron 560
Socket	754	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 2.0+82%
Max RAM Speed	DDR-400	DDR2-667
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 560). Primary use case: Celeron 560 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 560 rivals Pentium T2310.

Feature	Athlon 64 3000+	Celeron 560
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 560 came in at $89. On launch pricing ($149 vs $89), Celeron 560 was $60 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 3000+ delivers 3.0 pts/$ vs 5.3 pts/$ for the Celeron 560 — making the Celeron 560 the 55.4% better value option.

Feature	Athlon 64 3000+	Celeron 560
MSRP	$149	$89-40%
Performance per Dollar	3.0	5.3+77%
Release Date	2001	2008

Search Athlon 64 3000+ on Amazon

Search Celeron 560 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.