Athlon 64 3300+ vs Celeron J1750

Athlon 64 3300+ vs Celeron J1750 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 3300+

1 / 1

522

+3.4%

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 J1750

2 / 2

505

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 J1750 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 J1750: 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 J1750.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (150 vs 250).
❌Launch MSRP is still $200 MSRP, while Celeron J1750 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌8800% higher power demand at 89W vs 1W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron J1750 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Celeron J1750

2013

Why buy it

✅+66.7% higher Geekbench multi-core.
✅Draws 1W instead of 89W, a 88W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Bay Trail), while Athlon 64 3300+ needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

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

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron J1750 better than Athlon 64 3300+?

Yes. Celeron J1750 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 66.7% better Geekbench multi-core, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

For gaming, this matchup is basically a tie in the data we have.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron J1750 is the stronger fit. You are getting 66.7% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron J1750 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Celeron J1750 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $200 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Athlon 64 3300+ only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2004 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (2.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on 754.

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

Celeron J1750 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2004) and more multi-core headroom with 2 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 J1750 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 J1750

The Celeron J1750 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Bay Trail-D (2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.41 GHz, with boost up to 2.41 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 505 points. Launch price was $72.

⚡

Processing Power

The Athlon 64 3300+ packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Celeron J1750 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Celeron J1750 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the Athlon 64 3300+ versus 2.41 GHz on the Celeron J1750 — a 0.4% clock advantage for the Celeron J1750. The Athlon 64 3300+ uses the NewCastle (2004) architecture (130 nm), while the Celeron J1750 uses Bay Trail-D (2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 3300+ scores 522 against the Celeron J1750's 505 — a 3.3% lead for the Athlon 64 3300+. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 150 vs 150, a 0% lead for the Celeron J1750 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 150 vs 250 (50% advantage for the Celeron J1750). L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon 64 3300+ vs 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron J1750.

Feature	Athlon 64 3300+	Celeron J1750
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	2 / 2+100%
Boost Clock	2.4 GHz	2.41 GHz
Base Clock	—	2.41 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	1 MB L2 Cache
L2 Cache	256 kB	1 MB+300%
Process	130 nm	22 nm-83%
Architecture	NewCastle (2004)	Bay Trail-D (2013)
PassMark	522+3%	505
Geekbench 6 Single	150	150
Geekbench 6 Multi	150	250+67%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 64 3300+ uses the 754 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron J1750 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR1-400 on the Athlon 64 3300+ versus DDR3L-1333 on the Celeron J1750 — the Celeron J1750 supports 233.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron J1750 supports up to 8 GB of RAM compared to 3 GB — 166.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (Athlon 64 3300+) vs 2 (Celeron J1750). PCIe lanes: 0 (Athlon 64 3300+) vs 4 (Celeron J1750) — the Celeron J1750 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: VIA K8T800,nForce3 (Athlon 64 3300+) and N/A (SoC) (Celeron J1750).

Feature	Athlon 64 3300+	Celeron J1750
Socket	754	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 2.0+82%
Max RAM Speed	DDR1-400	DDR3L-1333+233%
Max RAM Capacity	3 GB	8 GB+167%
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: None (Athlon 64 3300+) vs VT-x (Celeron J1750). The Celeron J1750 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Bay Trail)), while the Athlon 64 3300+ requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Athlon 64 3300+ targets Retro Desktop, Celeron J1750 targets Low Power. Direct competitor: Celeron J1750 rivals Pentium J2850.