CPU
GPU
Athlon 64 3400+
Celeron 807
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 3400+ is positioned at rank 1116 and the Celeron 807 is on rank 1141, so the Athlon 64 3400+ 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 3400+
Performance Per Dollar Celeron 807
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon 64 3400+ | Celeron 807 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($20) | ✅ More affordable ($10) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Clawhammer (2001−2005) / 130 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) / 32 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon 64 3400+ | Celeron 807 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+96%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($20) | ✅ More affordable ($10) |
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 3400+ and Celeron 807
Athlon 64 3400+
The Athlon 64 3400+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Clawhammer (2001−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.4 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: 545 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 3400+ packs 1 cores / 1 threads, matching the Celeron 807's 1 cores. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the Athlon 64 3400+ versus 1.5 GHz on the Celeron 807 — a 46.2% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 3400+. The Athlon 64 3400+ uses the Clawhammer (2001−2005) architecture (130 nm), while the Celeron 807 uses Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 3400+ scores 545 against the Celeron 807's 535 — a 1.9% lead for the Athlon 64 3400+. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon 64 3400+ vs 1.5 MB (total) on the Celeron 807.
| Feature | Athlon 64 3400+ | 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 | 512K+100% | 256K (per core) |
| Process | 130 nm | 32 nm-75% |
| Architecture | Clawhammer (2001−2005) | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) |
| PassMark | 545+2% | 535 |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon 64 3400+ 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 DDR-400 on the Athlon 64 3400+ versus DDR3-1333 on the Celeron 807 — the Celeron 807 supports -203% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 807 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 120% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (Athlon 64 3400+) vs 2 (Celeron 807). Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: AMD 754 (Athlon 64 3400+) and QM67,QS67,HM67,HM65 (Celeron 807).
| Feature | Athlon 64 3400+ | Celeron 807 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | 754 | BGA1023 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 2.0+82% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR-400 | DDR3-1333 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 4 GB | 16 GB+300% |
| RAM Channels | 1 | 2+100% |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: not specified (Athlon 64 3400+) / VT-x (Celeron 807). The Celeron 807 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)), while the Athlon 64 3400+ requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 807 targets Mobile.
| Feature | Athlon 64 3400+ | Celeron 807 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) |
| Unlocked | — | No |
| AVX-512 | — | No |
| Virtualization | — | VT-x |
| Target Use | — | Mobile |
Value Analysis
The Athlon 64 3400+ launched at $440 MSRP, while the Celeron 807 debuted at $70. At current prices ($20 vs $10), the Celeron 807 is $10 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 3400+ delivers 27.3 pts/$ vs 53.5 pts/$ for the Celeron 807 — making the Celeron 807 the 65% better value option.
| Feature | Athlon 64 3400+ | Celeron 807 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $440 | $70-84% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $20 | $10-50% |
| Performance per Dollar | 27.3 | 53.5+96% |
| Release Date | 2001 | 2012 |
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 3400+ and Celeron 807
