Athlon 64 3300+ vs Celeron 925

Athlon 64 3300+ vs Celeron 925 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 925

525

+0.6%

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 925 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 925: 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 925.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (522 vs 525).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 2.6 vs 5.3 PassMark/$ ($200 MSRP vs $100 MSRP).
❌154.3% higher power demand at 89W vs 35W.

Celeron 925

2011

Why buy it

✅Costs $100 less on MSRP ($100 MSRP vs $200 MSRP).
✅Delivers 101.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 5.3 vs 2.6 PassMark/$ ($100 MSRP vs $200 MSRP).
✅Draws 35W instead of 89W, a 54W reduction.

Trade-offs

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

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 925 better than Athlon 64 3300+?

Yes. Celeron 925 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.6% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron 925 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.2% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 925 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.6% better PassMark.

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

Celeron 925 is the better buy right now. Celeron 925 comes in $100 cheaper on MSRP at $100 MSRP versus $200 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 101.1% better value on MSRP (5.3 vs 2.6 PassMark/$), 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 925 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2004). That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Athlon 64 3300+ vs Celeron 925 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 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 3300+ is built on the NewCastle (2004) architecture. In PassMark, the Athlon 64 3300+ scores 522 against the Celeron 925's 525 — a 0.6% lead for the Celeron 925. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon 64 3300+ vs 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron 925.

Feature	Athlon 64 3300+	Celeron 925
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	—
Boost Clock	2.4 GHz	—
Base Clock	—	2.3 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	1 MB L2 Cache
L2 Cache	256 kB	—
Process	130 nm	45 nm-65%
Architecture	NewCastle (2004)	—
PassMark	522	525
Geekbench 6 Single	150	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	150	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

Maximum memory speed reaches DDR1-400 on the Athlon 64 3300+ versus DDR3-1333 on the Celeron 925 — the Celeron 925 supports 233.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 925 supports up to 4 GB of RAM compared to 3 GB — 33.3% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 1-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: VIA K8T800,nForce3 (Athlon 64 3300+) and GL40,GM45 (Celeron 925).

Feature	Athlon 64 3300+	Celeron 925
Socket	754	—
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 2.0+82%
Max RAM Speed	DDR1-400	DDR3-1333+233%
Max RAM Capacity	3 GB	4 GB+33%
RAM Channels	1	1
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: None (Athlon 64 3300+) vs No (Celeron 925). Primary use case: Athlon 64 3300+ targets Retro Desktop, Celeron 925 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 925 rivals Pentium 4 2.80.

Feature	Athlon 64 3300+	Celeron 925
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 925 came in at $100. On launch pricing ($200 vs $100), Celeron 925 was $100 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 3300+ delivers 2.6 pts/$ vs 5.3 pts/$ for the Celeron 925 — making the Celeron 925 the 67.2% better value option.

Feature	Athlon 64 3300+	Celeron 925
MSRP	$200	$100-50%
Performance per Dollar	2.6	5.3+104%
Release Date	2004	2011

Search Athlon 64 3300+ on Amazon

Search Celeron 925 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.