Athlon 64 3400+ vs Celeron 925

Athlon 64 3400+ vs Celeron 925 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 3400+

1 / 1

545

+3.8%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron 925

525

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 3400+ 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 3400+ 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 3400+

2001

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +7.7% higher average FPS across 47 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 1.2 vs 5.3 PassMark/$ ($440 MSRP vs $100 MSRP).
❌154.3% higher power demand at 89W vs 35W.

Celeron 925

2011

Why buy it

✅Costs $340 less on MSRP ($100 MSRP vs $440 MSRP).
✅Delivers 323.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 5.3 vs 1.2 PassMark/$ ($100 MSRP vs $440 MSRP).
✅Draws 35W instead of 89W, a 54W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Athlon 64 3400+ across 47 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (525 vs 545).

Quick Answers

So, is Athlon 64 3400+ better than Celeron 925?

Yes. Athlon 64 3400+ is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 7.7% average FPS lead across 47 shared CPU game tests in our data and 3.8% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Athlon 64 3400+ is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 7.7% more average FPS across 47 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Athlon 64 3400+ is the stronger fit. You are getting 3.8% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Athlon 64 3400+ is still the much better call for a fresh build. Athlon 64 3400+ comes in 340.0% more expensive on MSRP at $440 MSRP versus $100 MSRP, and it still gives you a 7.7% average FPS lead across 47 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron 925 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2011 platform. Even with 323.9% better value on paper (5.3 vs 1.2 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on that older platform.

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 2001). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Athlon 64 3400+ vs Celeron 925 Technical Specifications

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

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 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 3400+ is built on the Clawhammer (2001−2005) architecture. In PassMark, the Athlon 64 3400+ scores 545 against the Celeron 925's 525 — a 3.7% lead for the Athlon 64 3400+. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon 64 3400+ vs 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron 925.

Feature	Athlon 64 3400+	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	512K	—
Process	130 nm	45 nm-65%
Architecture	Clawhammer (2001−2005)	—
PassMark	545+4%	525

🧠

Memory & Platform

Maximum memory speed reaches DDR-400 on the Athlon 64 3400+ versus DDR3-1333 on the Celeron 925 — the Celeron 925 supports -433.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 4 GB of RAM. Both feature 1-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: AMD 754 (Athlon 64 3400+) and GL40,GM45 (Celeron 925).

Feature	Athlon 64 3400+	Celeron 925
Socket	754	—
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 2.0+82%
Max RAM Speed	DDR-400	DDR3-1333
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	4 GB
RAM Channels	1	1
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Athlon 64 3400+) / No (Celeron 925). Primary use case: Celeron 925 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 925 rivals Pentium 4 2.80.

Feature	Athlon 64 3400+	Celeron 925
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	No
Virtualization	—	No
Target Use	—	Budget

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Athlon 64 3400+ was priced at $440, while the Celeron 925 came in at $100. On launch pricing ($440 vs $100), Celeron 925 was $340 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 3400+ delivers 1.2 pts/$ vs 5.3 pts/$ for the Celeron 925 — making the Celeron 925 the 123.6% better value option.

Feature	Athlon 64 3400+	Celeron 925
MSRP	$440	$100-77%
Performance per Dollar	1.2	5.3+342%
Release Date	2001	2011

Search Athlon 64 3400+ 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.