Athlon 64 3200+ vs Celeron 925
Athlon 64 3200+
Celeron 925
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 925 is on rank 1202, 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 925
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon 64 3200+ | Celeron 925 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($10) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($100) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Clawhammer (2001−2005) / 130 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Legacy / 45 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon 64 3200+ | Celeron 925 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+862%) | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($10) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($100) |
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 925
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 925
The Celeron 925 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. Base frequency: 2.3 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache. Built on 45 nm process technology. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 525 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 925's 525 — a 3.9% lead for the Celeron 925. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon 64 3200+ vs 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron 925.
| Feature | Athlon 64 3200+ | Celeron 925 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 1 / 1 | — |
| Boost Clock | 2 GHz | — |
| Base Clock | — | 2.3 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 1 MB L2 Cache |
| L2 Cache | 512K | — |
| Process | 130 nm | 45 nm-65% |
| Architecture | Clawhammer (2001−2005) | — |
| PassMark | 505 | 525+4% |
Memory & Platform
Maximum memory speed reaches DDR1-400 on the Athlon 64 3200+ versus DDR3-1333 on the Celeron 925 — the Celeron 925 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 925). PCIe lanes: 16 (Athlon 64 3200+) vs 0 (Celeron 925) — 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 925).
| Feature | Athlon 64 3200+ | Celeron 925 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | 754 | — |
| 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 925). Primary use case: Celeron 925 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 925 rivals Pentium 4 2.80.
| Feature | Athlon 64 3200+ | Celeron 925 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 925 debuted at $100. At current prices ($10 vs $100), the Athlon 64 3200+ is $90 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 3200+ delivers 50.5 pts/$ vs 5.3 pts/$ for the Celeron 925 — making the Athlon 64 3200+ the 162.3% better value option.
| Feature | Athlon 64 3200+ | Celeron 925 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $417 | $100-76% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $10-90% | $100 |
| Performance per Dollar | 50.5+853% | 5.3 |
| Release Date | 2001 | 2011 |
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 925
