Athlon 64 3500+ vs Celeron SU2300

Athlon 64 3500+ vs Celeron SU2300 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 3500+

1 / 1

570

+4.6%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron SU2300

545

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 3500+ vs Celeron SU2300 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 3500+ vs Celeron SU2300: 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 3500+

2001

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 2.1 vs 4.1 PassMark/$ ($272 MSRP vs $134 MSRP).
❌790% higher power demand at 89W vs 10W.

Celeron SU2300

2009

Why buy it

✅Costs $138 less on MSRP ($134 MSRP vs $272 MSRP).
✅Delivers 94.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 4.1 vs 2.1 PassMark/$ ($134 MSRP vs $272 MSRP).
✅Draws 10W instead of 89W, a 79W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (545 vs 570).

Quick Answers

So, is Athlon 64 3500+ better than Celeron SU2300?

Yes. Athlon 64 3500+ is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 4.6% 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 3500+ is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.1% 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, Athlon 64 3500+ is the stronger fit. You are getting 4.6% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Athlon 64 3500+ is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Athlon 64 3500+ comes in 103.0% more expensive on MSRP at $272 MSRP versus $134 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron SU2300 only looks good on raw value math because it is a cheap legacy laptop chip, not because it is a real desktop gaming recommendation. It simply does not keep up in modern games, especially when the gap is already 0.1% in the shared gaming data.

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

Celeron SU2300 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2009 vs 2001). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Athlon 64 3500+ vs Celeron SU2300 Technical Specifications

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

Athlon 64 3500+

The Athlon 64 3500+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Janeiro 2001 (24 years ago). It is based on the San Diego (2001−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 939. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 570 points. Launch price was $59.

Celeron SU2300

The Celeron SU2300 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. Base frequency: 1.2 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: BGA956. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 545 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Athlon 64 3500+ is built on the San Diego (2001−2005) architecture. In PassMark, the Athlon 64 3500+ scores 570 against the Celeron SU2300's 545 — a 4.5% lead for the Athlon 64 3500+. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon 64 3500+ vs 1 MB on the Celeron SU2300.

Feature	Athlon 64 3500+	Celeron SU2300
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	—
Boost Clock	2.2 GHz	—
Base Clock	—	1.2 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	1 MB
L2 Cache	512 kB	—
Process	130 nm	45 nm-65%
Architecture	San Diego (2001−2005)	—
PassMark	570+5%	545

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 64 3500+ uses the 939 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron SU2300 uses BGA956 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Athlon 64 3500+	Celeron SU2300
Socket	939	BGA956
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 2.0+82%
Max RAM Speed	DDR-400	—
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	0	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Athlon 64 3500+ was priced at $272, while the Celeron SU2300 came in at $134. On launch pricing ($272 vs $134), Celeron SU2300 was $138 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 3500+ delivers 2.1 pts/$ vs 4.1 pts/$ for the Celeron SU2300 — making the Celeron SU2300 the 64% better value option.

Feature	Athlon 64 3500+	Celeron SU2300
MSRP	$272	$134-51%
Performance per Dollar	2.1	4.1+95%
Release Date	2001	2009

Search Athlon 64 3500+ on Amazon

Search Celeron SU2300 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.