Athlon 64 3500+ vs Celeron U3400
Athlon 64 3500+
Celeron U3400
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 3500+ is positioned at rank 1102 and the Celeron U3400 is on rank 1172, so the Athlon 64 3500+ 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 3500+
Performance Per Dollar Celeron U3400
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon 64 3500+ | Celeron U3400 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($10) | ✅ More affordable ($5) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (San Diego (2001−2005) / 130 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Westmere (2010−2011) / 32 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon 64 3500+ | Celeron U3400 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+102%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($10) | ✅ More affordable ($5) |
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 3500+ and Celeron U3400
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 U3400
The Celeron U3400 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Westmere (2010−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.06 GHz, with boost up to 0.07 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1288. Thermal design power (TDP): 18 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-800. Passmark benchmark score: 575 points. Launch price was $69.
Processing Power
The Athlon 64 3500+ packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Celeron U3400 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Celeron U3400 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.2 GHz on the Athlon 64 3500+ versus 0.07 GHz on the Celeron U3400 — a 187.7% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 3500+. The Athlon 64 3500+ uses the San Diego (2001−2005) architecture (130 nm), while the Celeron U3400 uses Westmere (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 3500+ scores 570 against the Celeron U3400's 575 — a 0.9% lead for the Celeron U3400. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon 64 3500+ vs 2 MB on the Celeron U3400.
| Feature | Athlon 64 3500+ | Celeron U3400 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 1 / 1 | 2 / 2+100% |
| Boost Clock | 2.2 GHz+3043% | 0.07 GHz |
| Base Clock | — | 1.06 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 2 MB |
| L2 Cache | 512 kB | 512 kB |
| Process | 130 nm | 32 nm-75% |
| Architecture | San Diego (2001−2005) | Westmere (2010−2011) |
| PassMark | 570 | 575 |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon 64 3500+ uses the 939 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron U3400 uses BGA1288 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Athlon 64 3500+ | Celeron U3400 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | 939 | BGA1288 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 2.0+82% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR-400 | — |
| Max RAM Capacity | 4 GB | — |
| RAM Channels | 2 | — |
| ECC Support | ❌ | — |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | — |
Value Analysis
The Athlon 64 3500+ launched at $272 MSRP, while the Celeron U3400 debuted at $86. At current prices ($10 vs $5), the Celeron U3400 is $5 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 3500+ delivers 57.0 pts/$ vs 115.0 pts/$ for the Celeron U3400 — making the Celeron U3400 the 67.4% better value option.
| Feature | Athlon 64 3500+ | Celeron U3400 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $272 | $86-68% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $10 | $5-50% |
| Performance per Dollar | 57.0 | 115.0+102% |
| Release Date | 2001 | 2010 |
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 3500+ and Celeron U3400
