Athlon 64 3200+ vs Celeron 900
Athlon 64 3200+
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 3200+ is positioned at rank 1118 and the Celeron 900 is on rank 1193, 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 900
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon 64 3200+ | Celeron 900 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($10) | ✅ More affordable ($5) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Clawhammer (2001−2005) / 130 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Legacy / 45 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon 64 3200+ | Celeron 900 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+92%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($10) | ✅ 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.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Athlon 64 3200+ and Celeron 900
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 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 3200+ is built on the Clawhammer (2001−2005) architecture. In PassMark, the Athlon 64 3200+ scores 505 against the Celeron 900's 485 — a 4% lead for the Athlon 64 3200+. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon 64 3200+ vs 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron 900.
| Feature | Athlon 64 3200+ | Celeron 900 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 1 / 1 | — |
| Boost Clock | 2 GHz | — |
| Base Clock | — | 2.2 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 1 MB L2 Cache |
| L2 Cache | 512K | — |
| Process | 130 nm | 45 nm-65% |
| Architecture | Clawhammer (2001−2005) | — |
| PassMark | 505+4% | 485 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 220 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 229 |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon 64 3200+ uses the 754 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron 900 uses PGA478 (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 900 — the Celeron 900 supports 100% 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 3200+) vs 1 (Celeron 900). PCIe lanes: 16 (Athlon 64 3200+) vs 0 (Celeron 900) — the Athlon 64 3200+ offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Socket 939,Socket 754 (Athlon 64 3200+) and GL40,GM45 (Celeron 900).
| Feature | Athlon 64 3200+ | Celeron 900 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | 754 | PGA478 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 2.0+82% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR1-400 | DDR3-1333+200% |
| 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: false (Athlon 64 3200+) vs No (Celeron 900). Primary use case: Celeron 900 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 900 rivals Pentium 4 2.80.
| Feature | Athlon 64 3200+ | Celeron 900 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | false | No |
| Target Use | — | Budget |
Value Analysis
The Athlon 64 3200+ launched at $417 MSRP, while the Celeron 900 debuted at $86. At current prices ($10 vs $5), the Celeron 900 is $5 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 3200+ delivers 50.5 pts/$ vs 97.0 pts/$ for the Celeron 900 — making the Celeron 900 the 63.1% better value option.
| Feature | Athlon 64 3200+ | Celeron 900 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $417 | $86-79% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $10 | $5-50% |
| Performance per Dollar | 50.5 | 97.0+92% |
| Release Date | 2001 | 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 3200+ and Celeron 900
