CPU
GPU
Athlon 64 3400+
Celeron 925
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 925 is on rank 1202, 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 925
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon 64 3400+ | Celeron 925 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($20) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($100) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Clawhammer (2001−2005) / 130 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Legacy / 45 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon 64 3400+ | Celeron 925 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+419%) | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($20) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($100) |
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 925
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 -203% 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 | ❌ | ❌ |
| 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
The Athlon 64 3400+ launched at $440 MSRP, while the Celeron 925 debuted at $100. At current prices ($20 vs $100), the Athlon 64 3400+ is $80 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 3400+ delivers 27.3 pts/$ vs 5.3 pts/$ for the Celeron 925 — making the Athlon 64 3400+ the 135.4% better value option.
| Feature | Athlon 64 3400+ | Celeron 925 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $440 | $100-77% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $20-80% | $100 |
| Performance per Dollar | 27.3+415% | 5.3 |
| Release Date | 2001 | 2011 |
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 925
