
Athlon 64 3700+

Celeron B720
Athlon 64 3700+ vs Celeron B720 Performance Spectrum
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 3700+ vs Celeron B720 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.

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Valorant

Among Us

Apex Legends

ARC Raiders

Baldur's Gate 3

Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
Athlon 64 3700+ vs Celeron B720: 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 3700+
2001Why buy it
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron B720 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (622 vs 665).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 2.3 vs 9.5 PassMark/$ ($272 MSRP vs $70 MSRP).
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron B720 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Celeron B720
2012Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +4.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $202 less on MSRP ($70 MSRP vs $272 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 315.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 9.5 vs 2.3 PassMark/$ ($70 MSRP vs $272 MSRP).
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge), while Athlon 64 3700+ needs a discrete GPU.
Trade-offs
- ❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.
Quick Answers
So, is Celeron B720 better than Athlon 64 3700+?
Which one is better for gaming?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Athlon 64 3700+ vs Celeron B720 Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Athlon 64 3700+
The Athlon 64 3700+ 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: 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 939. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 622 points. Launch price was $69.

Celeron B720
The Celeron B720 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 January 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Base frequency is 1.7 GHz, with boost up to 1.7 GHz. L3 cache: 1.5 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: G2. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 665 points. Launch price was $70.
Processing Power
Both the Athlon 64 3700+ and Celeron B720 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the Athlon 64 3700+ versus 1.7 GHz on the Celeron B720 — a 34.1% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 3700+. The Athlon 64 3700+ uses the San Diego (2001−2005) architecture (130 nm), while the Celeron B720 uses Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 3700+ scores 622 against the Celeron B720's 665 — a 6.7% lead for the Celeron B720. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon 64 3700+ vs 1.5 MB (total) on the Celeron B720.
| Feature | Athlon 64 3700+ | Celeron B720 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 1 / 1 | 1 / 1 |
| Boost Clock | 2.4 GHz+41% | 1.7 GHz |
| Base Clock | — | 1.7 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 1.5 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+300% | 256 kB (per core) |
| Process | 130 nm | 32 nm-75% |
| Architecture | San Diego (2001−2005) | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) |
| PassMark | 622 | 665+7% |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon 64 3700+ uses the 939 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron B720 uses G2 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR-400 on the Athlon 64 3700+ versus DDR3-1333 on the Celeron B720 — the Celeron B720 supports -433.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron B720 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Athlon 64 3700+) vs 16 (Celeron B720) — the Celeron B720 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD 939 (Athlon 64 3700+) and HM65,HM67,QM67,QM77 (Celeron B720).
| Feature | Athlon 64 3700+ | Celeron B720 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | 939 | G2 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 2.0+82% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR-400 | DDR3-1333 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 4 GB | 16 GB+300% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | No | No |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 16 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: not specified (Athlon 64 3700+) / VT-x (Celeron B720). The Celeron B720 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)), while the Athlon 64 3700+ requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron B720 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron B720 rivals Pentium 967.
| Feature | Athlon 64 3700+ | Celeron B720 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) |
| Unlocked | — | No |
| AVX-512 | — | No |
| Virtualization | — | VT-x |
| Target Use | — | Budget |
Value Analysis
At launch, the Athlon 64 3700+ was priced at $272, while the Celeron B720 came in at $70. On launch pricing ($272 vs $70), Celeron B720 was $202 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 3700+ delivers 2.3 pts/$ vs 9.5 pts/$ for the Celeron B720 — making the Celeron B720 the 122.4% better value option.
| Feature | Athlon 64 3700+ | Celeron B720 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $272 | $70-74% |
| Performance per Dollar | 2.3 | 9.5+313% |
| Release Date | 2001 | 2012 |
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.
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
















