Athlon 64 4000+ vs Celeron 857

Athlon 64 4000+ vs Celeron 857 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 4000+

1 / 1

675

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron 857

2 / 2

705

+4.4%

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 4000+ vs Celeron 857 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 4000+ vs Celeron 857: 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 4000+

2001

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron 857 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (675 vs 705).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 1.4 vs 5.3 PassMark/$ ($482 MSRP vs $134 MSRP).
❌423.5% higher power demand at 89W vs 17W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 857 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Celeron 857

2011

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +4.3% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $348 less on MSRP ($134 MSRP vs $482 MSRP).
✅Delivers 275.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 5.3 vs 1.4 PassMark/$ ($134 MSRP vs $482 MSRP).
✅Draws 17W instead of 89W, a 72W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 857 better than Athlon 64 4000+?

Yes. Celeron 857 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 4.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 4.4% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron 857 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 4.3% 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, Celeron 857 is the stronger fit. You are getting 4.4% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron 857 is the better buy right now. Celeron 857 comes in $348 cheaper on MSRP at $134 MSRP versus $482 MSRP, and it still gives you a 4.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 275.7% better value on MSRP (5.3 vs 1.4 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Celeron 857 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2001) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 1/1. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Athlon 64 4000+ vs Celeron 857 Technical Specifications

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

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 66.6% 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+67%
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	16 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
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

At launch, the Athlon 64 4000+ was priced at $482, while the Celeron 857 came in at $134. On launch pricing ($482 vs $134), Celeron 857 was $348 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 4000+ delivers 1.4 pts/$ vs 5.3 pts/$ for the Celeron 857 — making the Celeron 857 the 115.9% better value option.

Feature	Athlon 64 4000+	Celeron 857
MSRP	$482	$134-72%
Performance per Dollar	1.4	5.3+279%
Release Date	2001	2011

Search Athlon 64 4000+ on Amazon

Search Celeron 857 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.