Athlon 64 4000+ vs Celeron 857
Athlon 64 4000+
Celeron 857
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 4000+ is positioned at rank 1112 and the Celeron 857 is on rank 1201, so the Athlon 64 4000+ 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 4000+
Performance Per Dollar Celeron 857
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon 64 4000+ | Celeron 857 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($30) | ✅ More affordable ($10) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (San Diego (2001−2005) / 130 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) / 32 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon 64 4000+ | Celeron 857 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+213%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($30) | ✅ More affordable ($10) |
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 4000+ and Celeron 857
Athlon 64 4000+
The Athlon 64 4000+ 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: 2.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 939. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 675 points. Launch price was $160.
Celeron 857
The Celeron 857 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 July 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.2 GHz, with boost up to 1.2 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1023. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 705 points. Launch price was $134.
Processing Power
The Athlon 64 4000+ packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Celeron 857 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Celeron 857 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the Athlon 64 4000+ versus 1.2 GHz on the Celeron 857 — a 73.7% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 4000+. The Athlon 64 4000+ uses the San Diego (2001−2005) architecture (130 nm), while the Celeron 857 uses Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 4000+ scores 675 against the Celeron 857's 705 — a 4.3% lead for the Celeron 857. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon 64 4000+ vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 857.
| Feature | Athlon 64 4000+ | Celeron 857 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 1 / 1 | 2 / 2+100% |
| Boost Clock | 2.6 GHz+117% | 1.2 GHz |
| Base Clock | — | 1.2 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 2 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 512K+100% | 256K (per core) |
| Process | 130 nm | 32 nm-75% |
| Architecture | San Diego (2001−2005) | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) |
| PassMark | 675 | 705+4% |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon 64 4000+ uses the 939 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron 857 uses BGA1023 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-800 on the Athlon 64 4000+ versus DDR3-1333 on the Celeron 857 — the Celeron 857 supports 40% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 16 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Athlon 64 4000+) vs 16 (Celeron 857) — the Celeron 857 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD AM2 (Athlon 64 4000+) and HM65,HM67 (Celeron 857).
| Feature | Athlon 64 4000+ | Celeron 857 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | 939 | BGA1023 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 2.0+82% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR2-800 | DDR3-1333+50% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 16 GB | 16 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 16 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: not specified (Athlon 64 4000+) / VT-x (Celeron 857). The Celeron 857 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)), while the Athlon 64 4000+ requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 857 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 857 rivals Pentium 967.
| Feature | Athlon 64 4000+ | Celeron 857 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) |
| Unlocked | — | No |
| AVX-512 | — | No |
| Virtualization | — | VT-x |
| Target Use | — | Budget |
Value Analysis
The Athlon 64 4000+ launched at $482 MSRP, while the Celeron 857 debuted at $134. At current prices ($30 vs $10), the Celeron 857 is $20 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 4000+ delivers 22.5 pts/$ vs 70.5 pts/$ for the Celeron 857 — making the Celeron 857 the 103.2% better value option.
| Feature | Athlon 64 4000+ | Celeron 857 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $482 | $134-72% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $30 | $10-67% |
| Performance per Dollar | 22.5 | 70.5+213% |
| 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 4000+ and Celeron 857
