Athlon 64 3200+ vs Celeron 807
Athlon 64 3200+
Celeron 807
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 3200+ is positioned at rank 1118 and the Celeron 807 is on rank 1141, so the Athlon 64 3200+ 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 3200+
Performance Per Dollar Celeron 807
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon 64 3200+ | Celeron 807 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | Equivalent pricing | Equivalent pricing |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Clawhammer (2001−2005) / 130 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) / 32 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon 64 3200+ | Celeron 807 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+6%) |
| Upfront Cost | Equivalent pricing | Equivalent pricing |
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 3200+ and Celeron 807
Athlon 64 3200+
The Athlon 64 3200+ 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: 505 points. Launch price was $150.
Celeron 807
The Celeron 807 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 July 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 1 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.5 GHz, with boost up to 1.5 GHz. L3 cache: 1.5 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1023. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 535 points. Launch price was $70.
Processing Power
The Athlon 64 3200+ packs 1 cores / 1 threads, matching the Celeron 807's 1 cores. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Athlon 64 3200+ versus 1.5 GHz on the Celeron 807 — a 28.6% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 3200+. The Athlon 64 3200+ uses the Clawhammer (2001−2005) architecture (130 nm), while the Celeron 807 uses Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 3200+ scores 505 against the Celeron 807's 535 — a 5.8% lead for the Celeron 807. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon 64 3200+ vs 1.5 MB (total) on the Celeron 807.
| Feature | Athlon 64 3200+ | Celeron 807 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 1 / 1 | 1 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 2 GHz+33% | 1.5 GHz |
| Base Clock | — | 1.5 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 1.5 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 512K+100% | 256K (per core) |
| Process | 130 nm | 32 nm-75% |
| Architecture | Clawhammer (2001−2005) | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) |
| PassMark | 505 | 535+6% |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon 64 3200+ uses the 754 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron 807 uses BGA1023 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR1-400 on the Athlon 64 3200+ versus DDR3-1333 on the Celeron 807 — the Celeron 807 supports 100% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 807 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 120% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Athlon 64 3200+) vs 0 (Celeron 807) — the Athlon 64 3200+ offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Socket 939,Socket 754 (Athlon 64 3200+) and QM67,QS67,HM67,HM65 (Celeron 807).
| Feature | Athlon 64 3200+ | Celeron 807 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | 754 | BGA1023 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 2.0+82% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR1-400 | DDR3-1333+200% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 4 GB | 16 GB+300% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: false (Athlon 64 3200+) vs VT-x (Celeron 807). The Celeron 807 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)), while the Athlon 64 3200+ requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 807 targets Mobile.
| Feature | Athlon 64 3200+ | Celeron 807 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | false | VT-x |
| Target Use | — | Mobile |
Value Analysis
The Athlon 64 3200+ launched at $417 MSRP, while the Celeron 807 debuted at $70. At current prices ($10 vs $10), the Celeron 807 is $0 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 3200+ delivers 50.5 pts/$ vs 53.5 pts/$ for the Celeron 807 — making the Celeron 807 the 5.8% better value option.
| Feature | Athlon 64 3200+ | Celeron 807 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $417 | $70-83% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $10 | $10 |
| Performance per Dollar | 50.5 | 53.5+6% |
| Release Date | 2001 | 2012 |
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 3200+ and Celeron 807
