Athlon 64 4000+ vs Celeron N3000
Athlon 64 4000+
Celeron N3000
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 N3000 is on rank 817, so the Celeron N3000 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 N3000
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon 64 4000+ | Celeron N3000 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($30) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (San Diego (2001−2005) / 130 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Braswell (2015−2016) / 14 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon 64 4000+ | Celeron N3000 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($30) | ✅ 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 4000+ and Celeron N3000
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 N3000
The Celeron N3000 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 April 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Braswell (2015−2016) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.04 GHz, with boost up to 2.08 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 4 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 705 points. Launch price was $107.
Processing Power
The Athlon 64 4000+ packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Celeron N3000 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Celeron N3000 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the Athlon 64 4000+ versus 2.08 GHz on the Celeron N3000 — a 22.2% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 4000+. The Athlon 64 4000+ uses the San Diego (2001−2005) architecture (130 nm), while the Celeron N3000 uses Braswell (2015−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 4000+ scores 675 against the Celeron N3000's 705 — a 4.3% lead for the Celeron N3000. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.
| Feature | Athlon 64 4000+ | Celeron N3000 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 1 / 1 | 2 / 2+100% |
| Boost Clock | 2.6 GHz+25% | 2.08 GHz |
| Base Clock | — | 1.04 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 512K | 1 MB+100% |
| Process | 130 nm | 14 nm-89% |
| Architecture | San Diego (2001−2005) | Braswell (2015−2016) |
| PassMark | 675 | 705+4% |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 160 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 290 |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon 64 4000+ uses the 939 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron N3000 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-800 on the Athlon 64 4000+ versus DDR3L-1600 on the Celeron N3000 — the Celeron N3000 supports 40% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Athlon 64 4000+ supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Athlon 64 4000+) vs 4 (Celeron N3000) — the Celeron N3000 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD AM2 (Athlon 64 4000+) and SoC (Celeron N3000).
| Feature | Athlon 64 4000+ | Celeron N3000 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | 939 | FCBGA1170 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 3.0+173% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR2-800 | DDR3L-1600+50% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 16 GB+100% | 8 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 4 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: not specified (Athlon 64 4000+) / VT-x, VT-d (Celeron N3000). The Celeron N3000 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics 400), while the Athlon 64 4000+ requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron N3000 targets Budget Laptop. Direct competitor: Celeron N3000 rivals AMD E2-7110.
| Feature | Athlon 64 4000+ | Celeron N3000 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | Intel HD Graphics 400 |
| Unlocked | — | No |
| AVX-512 | — | No |
| Virtualization | — | VT-x, VT-d |
| Target Use | — | Budget Laptop |
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 N3000
