Athlon 64 3300+ vs Celeron 450

CPU

GPU

Athlon 64 3300+

1 Cores1 Thrd89 WWMax: 2.4 GHz2004

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Celeron 450

1 Cores1 Thrd35 WWMax: 2.2 GHz2008

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Athlon 64 3300+ vs Celeron 450 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 3300+

1 / 1

522

+5.5%

Athlon XP 2200+

Athlon XP 2600+

Mobile Athlon 64 2700+

Athlon 64 3000+

Ryzen 5 PRO 220

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron 450

1 / 1

495

0.0%

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.

Athlon 64 3300+ vs Celeron 450 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Athlon 64 3300+ vs Celeron 450: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Athlon 64 3300+

2004

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +8.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Stock Cooler), unlike Celeron 450.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (150 vs 269).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 2.6 vs 9.3 PassMark/$ ($200 MSRP vs $53 MSRP).
❌154.3% higher power demand at 89W vs 35W.

Celeron 450

2008

Why buy it

✅+79.3% higher Geekbench multi-core.
✅Costs $147 less on MSRP ($53 MSRP vs $200 MSRP).
✅Delivers 257.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 9.3 vs 2.6 PassMark/$ ($53 MSRP vs $200 MSRP).
✅Draws 35W instead of 89W, a 54W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Athlon 64 3300+ across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Athlon 64 3300+.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 450 better than Athlon 64 3300+?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Athlon 64 3300+ is ahead with a 8.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 450 pulls ahead with 79.3% better Geekbench multi-core.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 450 is the stronger fit. You are getting 79.3% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Celeron 450 is the better buy right now. Celeron 450 comes in $147 cheaper on MSRP at $53 MSRP versus $200 MSRP, and it still gives you 79.3% better Geekbench multi-core. The compromise is that Athlon 64 3300+ is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 8.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 257.8% better value on MSRP (9.3 vs 2.6 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Celeron 450 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2008 vs 2004) and more multi-core headroom with 1 cores / 1 threads instead of 1/1. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Athlon 64 3300+ vs Celeron 450 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Athlon 64 3300+

The Athlon 64 3300+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the NewCastle (2004) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 256 kB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 754. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 522 points. Launch price was $149.

Celeron 450

The Celeron 450 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 31 August 2008 (17 years ago). It is based on the Conroe-L (2007−2008) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 2.2 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: 495 points. Launch price was $53.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Athlon 64 3300+ and Celeron 450 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the Athlon 64 3300+ versus 2.2 GHz on the Celeron 450 — a 8.7% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 3300+. The Athlon 64 3300+ uses the NewCastle (2004) architecture (130 nm), while the Celeron 450 uses Conroe-L (2007−2008) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 3300+ scores 522 against the Celeron 450's 495 — a 5.3% lead for the Athlon 64 3300+. Multi-core Geekbench: 150 vs 269 (56.8% advantage for the Celeron 450). Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Athlon 64 3300+	Celeron 450
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2.4 GHz+9%	2.2 GHz
Base Clock	—	2.2 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	256 kB	512 kB+100%
Process	130 nm	65 nm-50%
Architecture	NewCastle (2004)	Conroe-L (2007−2008)
PassMark	522+5%	495
Geekbench 6 Single	150	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	150	269+79%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 64 3300+ uses the 754 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron 450 uses LGA775 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR1-400 on the Athlon 64 3300+ versus DDR2-800 on the Celeron 450 — the Celeron 450 supports 100% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 450 supports up to 4 GB of RAM compared to 3 GB — 33.3% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (Athlon 64 3300+) vs 2 (Celeron 450). Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: VIA K8T800,nForce3 (Athlon 64 3300+) and 945,G31,G41 (Celeron 450).

Feature	Athlon 64 3300+	Celeron 450
Socket	754	LGA775
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR1-400	DDR2-800+100%
Max RAM Capacity	3 GB	4 GB+33%
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: None (Athlon 64 3300+) vs No (Celeron 450). Primary use case: Athlon 64 3300+ targets Retro Desktop, Celeron 450 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 450 rivals Pentium 4 2.80.

Feature	Athlon 64 3300+	Celeron 450
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	None	—
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	None	No
Target Use	Retro Desktop	Budget

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Athlon 64 3300+ was priced at $200, while the Celeron 450 came in at $53. On launch pricing ($200 vs $53), Celeron 450 was $147 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 3300+ delivers 2.6 pts/$ vs 9.3 pts/$ for the Celeron 450 — making the Celeron 450 the 112.6% better value option.

Feature	Athlon 64 3300+	Celeron 450
MSRP	$200	$53-74%
Performance per Dollar	2.6	9.3+258%
Release Date	2004	2008

Search Athlon 64 3300+ on Amazon

Search Celeron 450 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.