Athlon 64 3300+ vs Celeron 807

CPU

GPU

Athlon 64 3300+

1 Cores1 Thrd89 WWMax: 2.4 GHz2004

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Celeron 807

1 Cores2 Thrd17 WWMax: 1.5 GHz2012

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Athlon 64 3300+ vs Celeron 807 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 3300+

1 / 1

522

0.0%

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 807

1 / 2

535

+2.5%

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 807 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 807: 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

✅Includes a boxed cooler (Stock Cooler), unlike Celeron 807.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (522 vs 535).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 2.6 vs 7.6 PassMark/$ ($200 MSRP vs $70 MSRP).
❌423.5% higher power demand at 89W vs 17W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 807 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Celeron 807

2012

Why buy it

✅+2.5% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $130 less on MSRP ($70 MSRP vs $200 MSRP).
✅Delivers 192.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 7.6 vs 2.6 PassMark/$ ($70 MSRP vs $200 MSRP).
✅Draws 17W instead of 89W, a 72W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge), while Athlon 64 3300+ needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Athlon 64 3300+.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 807 better than Athlon 64 3300+?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Athlon 64 3300+ is ahead with a 1.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 807 pulls ahead with 2.5% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 807 is the stronger fit. You are getting 2.5% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron 807 is the better buy right now. Celeron 807 comes in $130 cheaper on MSRP at $70 MSRP versus $200 MSRP, and it still gives you 2.5% better PassMark. The compromise is that Athlon 64 3300+ is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 1.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 192.8% better value on MSRP (7.6 vs 2.6 PassMark/$), 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 807 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2012 vs 2004) and more multi-core headroom with 1 cores / 2 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 807 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 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 3300+ packs 1 cores / 1 threads, matching the Celeron 807's 1 cores. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the Athlon 64 3300+ versus 1.5 GHz on the Celeron 807 — a 46.2% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 3300+. The Athlon 64 3300+ uses the NewCastle (2004) architecture (130 nm), while the Celeron 807 uses Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 3300+ scores 522 against the Celeron 807's 535 — a 2.5% lead for the Celeron 807. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon 64 3300+ vs 1.5 MB (total) on the Celeron 807.

Feature	Athlon 64 3300+	Celeron 807
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 2
Boost Clock	2.4 GHz+60%	1.5 GHz
Base Clock	—	1.5 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	1.5 MB (total)
L2 Cache	256 kB	256K (per core)
Process	130 nm	32 nm-75%
Architecture	NewCastle (2004)	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
PassMark	522	535+2%
Geekbench 6 Single	150	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	150	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 64 3300+ 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 3300+ versus DDR3-1333 on the Celeron 807 — the Celeron 807 supports 233.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 807 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 3 GB — 433.3% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (Athlon 64 3300+) vs 2 (Celeron 807). Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: VIA K8T800,nForce3 (Athlon 64 3300+) and QM67,QS67,HM67,HM65 (Celeron 807).

Feature	Athlon 64 3300+	Celeron 807
Socket	754	BGA1023
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 2.0+82%
Max RAM Speed	DDR1-400	DDR3-1333+233%
Max RAM Capacity	3 GB	16 GB+433%
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 VT-x (Celeron 807). The Celeron 807 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)), while the Athlon 64 3300+ requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Athlon 64 3300+ targets Retro Desktop, Celeron 807 targets Mobile.

Feature	Athlon 64 3300+	Celeron 807
Integrated GPU	No	Yes
IGPU Model	None	HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	None	VT-x
Target Use	Retro Desktop	Mobile

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Athlon 64 3300+ was priced at $200, while the Celeron 807 came in at $70. On launch pricing ($200 vs $70), Celeron 807 was $130 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 3300+ delivers 2.6 pts/$ vs 7.6 pts/$ for the Celeron 807 — making the Celeron 807 the 98.2% better value option.

Feature	Athlon 64 3300+	Celeron 807
MSRP	$200	$70-65%
Performance per Dollar	2.6	7.6+192%
Release Date	2004	2012

Search Athlon 64 3300+ on Amazon

Search Celeron 807 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.