Athlon 64 3100+ vs Celeron 430
Athlon 64 3100+
Celeron 430
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 3100+ is positioned at rank 1074 and the Celeron 430 is on rank 1010, so the Celeron 430 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 3100+
Performance Per Dollar Celeron 430
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon 64 3100+ | Celeron 430 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($15) | ✅ More affordable ($10) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Lima (2008−2009) / 65 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Conroe-L (2007−2008) / 65 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon 64 3100+ | Celeron 430 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+41%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($15) | ✅ 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.
Path of Exile 2
Counter-Strike 2
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Athlon 64 3100+ and Celeron 430
Athlon 64 3100+
The Athlon 64 3100+ 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: 2 GHz. L2 cache: 512K. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: AM2. Thermal design power (TDP): 25 Watt. Memory support: DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 475 points. Launch price was $149.
Celeron 430
The Celeron 430 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 1.8 GHz, with boost up to 1.8 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: 448 points. Launch price was $50.
Processing Power
Both the Athlon 64 3100+ and Celeron 430 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Athlon 64 3100+ versus 1.8 GHz on the Celeron 430 — a 10.5% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 3100+. The Athlon 64 3100+ uses the Lima (2008−2009) architecture (65 nm), while the Celeron 430 uses Conroe-L (2007−2008) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 3100+ scores 475 against the Celeron 430's 448 — a 5.9% lead for the Athlon 64 3100+. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 280 vs 226, a 21.3% lead for the Athlon 64 3100+ that directly translates to higher frame rates.
| Feature | Athlon 64 3100+ | Celeron 430 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 1 / 1 | 1 / 1 |
| Boost Clock | 2 GHz+11% | 1.8 GHz |
| Base Clock | — | 1.8 GHz |
| L3 Cache | — | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 512K | 512 kB |
| Process | 65 nm | 65 nm |
| Architecture | Lima (2008−2009) | Conroe-L (2007−2008) |
| PassMark | 475+6% | 448 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 280+24% | 226 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 280 | — |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon 64 3100+ uses the AM2 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 430 uses LGA775 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR2-800 memory speed. Both support up to 4 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Athlon 64 3100+) vs 0 (Celeron 430) — the Athlon 64 3100+ offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: nForce 500,AMD 690G (Athlon 64 3100+) and 945,G31,G41 (Celeron 430).
| Feature | Athlon 64 3100+ | Celeron 430 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | AM2 | LGA775 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0+82% | PCIe 1.1 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR2-800 | DDR2-800 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (Athlon 64 3100+) vs No (Celeron 430). Primary use case: Athlon 64 3100+ targets Legacy Desktop, Celeron 430 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Athlon 64 3100+ rivals Celeron D 352; Celeron 430 rivals Pentium 4 2.80.
| Feature | Athlon 64 3100+ | Celeron 430 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | AMD-V | No |
| Target Use | Legacy Desktop | Budget |
Value Analysis
The Athlon 64 3100+ launched at $100 MSRP, while the Celeron 430 debuted at $49. At current prices ($15 vs $10), the Celeron 430 is $5 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 3100+ delivers 31.7 pts/$ vs 44.8 pts/$ for the Celeron 430 — making the Celeron 430 the 34.4% better value option.
| Feature | Athlon 64 3100+ | Celeron 430 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $100 | $49-51% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $15 | $10-33% |
| Performance per Dollar | 31.7 | 44.8+41% |
| Release Date | 2008 | 2007 |
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 3100+ and Celeron 430
