Athlon 64 3100+ vs Celeron 900
Athlon 64 3100+
Celeron 900
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 900 is on rank 1193, so the Athlon 64 3100+ 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 900
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon 64 3100+ | Celeron 900 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($15) | ✅ More affordable ($5) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Lima (2008−2009) / 65 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Legacy / 45 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon 64 3100+ | Celeron 900 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+206%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($15) | ✅ More affordable ($5) |
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 900
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 900
The Celeron 900 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. Base frequency: 2.2 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 485 points. Launch price was $69.
Processing Power
The Athlon 64 3100+ is built on the Lima (2008−2009) architecture. In PassMark, the Athlon 64 3100+ scores 475 against the Celeron 900's 485 — a 2.1% lead for the Celeron 900. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 280 vs 220, a 24% lead for the Athlon 64 3100+ that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 280 vs 229 (20% advantage for the Athlon 64 3100+).
| Feature | Athlon 64 3100+ | Celeron 900 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 1 / 1 | — |
| Boost Clock | 2 GHz | — |
| Base Clock | — | 2.2 GHz |
| L3 Cache | — | 1 MB L2 Cache |
| L2 Cache | 512K | — |
| Process | 65 nm | 45 nm-31% |
| Architecture | Lima (2008−2009) | — |
| PassMark | 475 | 485+2% |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 280+27% | 220 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 280+22% | 229 |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon 64 3100+ uses the AM2 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 900 uses PGA478 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-800 on the Athlon 64 3100+ versus DDR3-1333 on the Celeron 900 — the Celeron 900 supports 40% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 4 GB of RAM. Memory channels: 2 (Athlon 64 3100+) vs 1 (Celeron 900). PCIe lanes: 16 (Athlon 64 3100+) vs 0 (Celeron 900) — the Athlon 64 3100+ offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: nForce 500,AMD 690G (Athlon 64 3100+) and GL40,GM45 (Celeron 900).
| Feature | Athlon 64 3100+ | Celeron 900 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | AM2 | PGA478 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0 | PCIe 2.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR2-800 | DDR3-1333+50% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2+100% | 1 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (Athlon 64 3100+) vs No (Celeron 900). Primary use case: Athlon 64 3100+ targets Legacy Desktop, Celeron 900 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Athlon 64 3100+ rivals Celeron D 352; Celeron 900 rivals Pentium 4 2.80.
| Feature | Athlon 64 3100+ | Celeron 900 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 900 debuted at $86. At current prices ($15 vs $5), the Celeron 900 is $10 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 3100+ delivers 31.7 pts/$ vs 97.0 pts/$ for the Celeron 900 — making the Celeron 900 the 101.6% better value option.
| Feature | Athlon 64 3100+ | Celeron 900 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $100 | $86-14% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $15 | $5-67% |
| Performance per Dollar | 31.7 | 97.0+206% |
| Release Date | 2008 | 2009 |
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 900
