Athlon 64 FX-51 vs Celeron U3600
Athlon 64 FX-51
Celeron U3600
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 FX-51 is positioned at rank 1133 and the Celeron U3600 is on rank 1213, so the Athlon 64 FX-51 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 FX-51
Performance Per Dollar Celeron U3600
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon 64 FX-51 | Celeron U3600 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($733) | ✅ More affordable ($134) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (SledgeHammer (2003−2005) / 130 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Westmere (2010−2011) / 32 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon 64 FX-51 | Celeron U3600 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+456%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($733) | ✅ More affordable ($134) |
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 FX-51 and Celeron U3600
Athlon 64 FX-51
The Athlon 64 FX-51 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the SledgeHammer (2003−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 940. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 615 points. Launch price was $149.
Celeron U3600
The Celeron U3600 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Westmere (2010−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.2 GHz, with boost up to 0.1 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1288. Thermal design power (TDP): 18 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-800. Passmark benchmark score: 625 points. Launch price was $69.
Processing Power
The Athlon 64 FX-51 packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Celeron U3600 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Celeron U3600 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.2 GHz on the Athlon 64 FX-51 versus 0.1 GHz on the Celeron U3600 — a 182.6% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 FX-51. The Athlon 64 FX-51 uses the SledgeHammer (2003−2005) architecture (130 nm), while the Celeron U3600 uses Westmere (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 FX-51 scores 615 against the Celeron U3600's 625 — a 1.6% lead for the Celeron U3600. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon 64 FX-51 vs 2 MB on the Celeron U3600.
| Feature | Athlon 64 FX-51 | Celeron U3600 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 1 / 1 | 2 / 2+100% |
| Boost Clock | 2.2 GHz+2100% | 0.1 GHz |
| Base Clock | — | 1.2 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 2 MB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 512 kB |
| Process | 130 nm | 32 nm-75% |
| Architecture | SledgeHammer (2003−2005) | Westmere (2010−2011) |
| PassMark | 615 | 625+2% |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon 64 FX-51 uses the 940 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron U3600 uses BGA1288 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Athlon 64 FX-51 | Celeron U3600 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | 940 | BGA1288 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 2.0+82% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR-400 | — |
| Max RAM Capacity | 4 GB | — |
| RAM Channels | 2 | — |
| ECC Support | ✅ | — |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | — |
Value Analysis
The Athlon 64 FX-51 launched at $733 MSRP, while the Celeron U3600 debuted at $134. At current prices ($733 vs $134), the Celeron U3600 is $599 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 FX-51 delivers 0.8 pts/$ vs 4.7 pts/$ for the Celeron U3600 — making the Celeron U3600 the 139% better value option.
| Feature | Athlon 64 FX-51 | Celeron U3600 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $733 | $134-82% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $733 | $134-82% |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.8 | 4.7+488% |
| Release Date | 2003 | 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 FX-51 and Celeron U3600
