Athlon 64 3600+ vs Celeron N2808
Athlon 64 3600+
Celeron N2808
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 3600+ is positioned at rank 1078 and the Celeron N2808 is on rank 1192, so the Athlon 64 3600+ 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 3600+
Performance Per Dollar Celeron N2808
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon 64 3600+ | Celeron N2808 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($15) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Clawhammer (2001−2005) / 130 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) / 22 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon 64 3600+ | Celeron N2808 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($15) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
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 3600+ and Celeron N2808
Athlon 64 3600+
The Athlon 64 3600+ 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. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 754. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Memory support: DDR1. Passmark benchmark score: 595 points. Launch price was $149.
Celeron N2808
The Celeron N2808 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.58 GHz, with boost up to 2.25 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 4.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 615 points. Launch price was $69.
Processing Power
The Athlon 64 3600+ packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Celeron N2808 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Celeron N2808 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the Athlon 64 3600+ versus 2.25 GHz on the Celeron N2808 — a 6.5% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 3600+. The Athlon 64 3600+ uses the Clawhammer (2001−2005) architecture (130 nm), while the Celeron N2808 uses Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 3600+ scores 595 against the Celeron N2808's 615 — a 3.3% lead for the Celeron N2808.
| Feature | Athlon 64 3600+ | Celeron N2808 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 1 / 1 | 2 / 2+100% |
| Boost Clock | 2.4 GHz+7% | 2.25 GHz |
| Base Clock | — | 1.58 GHz |
| L3 Cache | — | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 512K (per core) |
| Process | 130 nm | 22 nm-83% |
| Architecture | Clawhammer (2001−2005) | Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) |
| PassMark | 595 | 615+3% |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon 64 3600+ uses the 754 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron N2808 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-800 on the Athlon 64 3600+ versus DDR3L-1333 on the Celeron N2808 — the Celeron N2808 supports 40% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Athlon 64 3600+ supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 120% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Athlon 64 3600+) vs 1 (Celeron N2808). PCIe lanes: 0 (Athlon 64 3600+) vs 4 (Celeron N2808) — the Celeron N2808 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.
| Feature | Athlon 64 3600+ | Celeron N2808 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | 754 | FCBGA1170 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 2.0+82% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR2-800 | DDR3L-1333+50% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 16 GB+300% | 4 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2+100% | 1 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 4 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: not specified (Athlon 64 3600+) / VT-x (Celeron N2808). The Celeron N2808 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Bay Trail)), while the Athlon 64 3600+ requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron N2808 targets Mobile.
| Feature | Athlon 64 3600+ | Celeron N2808 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | HD Graphics (Bay Trail) |
| Unlocked | — | No |
| AVX-512 | — | No |
| Virtualization | — | VT-x |
| Target Use | — | Mobile |
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 3600+ and Celeron N2808
