Athlon 64 FX-53 vs Celeron B720

CPU

GPU

Athlon 64 FX-53

1 Cores1 Thrd89 WWMax: 2.4 GHz2004

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Celeron B720

1 Cores1 Thrd0 WWMax: 1.7 GHz2012

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Athlon 64 FX-53 vs Celeron B720 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 FX-53

1 / 1

645

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron B720

1 / 1

665

+3.1%

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 FX-53 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.

Athlon 64 FX-53 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 FX-53

2004

Why buy it

✅Includes a boxed cooler (Stock), unlike Celeron B720.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron B720 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (645 vs 665).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 0.8 vs 9.5 PassMark/$ ($799 MSRP vs $70 MSRP).
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron B720 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Celeron B720

2012

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +4.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $729 less on MSRP ($70 MSRP vs $799 MSRP).
✅Delivers 1076.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 9.5 vs 0.8 PassMark/$ ($70 MSRP vs $799 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 FX-53 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Athlon 64 FX-53.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron B720 better than Athlon 64 FX-53?

Yes. Celeron B720 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 4.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 3.1% 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 B720 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 4.5% 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 B720 is the stronger fit. You are getting 3.1% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Celeron B720 is the better buy right now. Celeron B720 comes in $729 cheaper on MSRP at $70 MSRP versus $799 MSRP, and it still gives you a 4.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 1076.8% better value on MSRP (9.5 vs 0.8 PassMark/$), 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 B720 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2012 vs 2004) and more multi-core headroom with 1 cores / 1 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 FX-53 vs Celeron B720 Technical Specifications

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

Athlon 64 FX-53

The Athlon 64 FX-53 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Junho 2004 (21 years ago). It is based on the Clawhammer (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: 645 points. Launch price was $30.

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 FX-53 and Celeron B720 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the Athlon 64 FX-53 versus 1.7 GHz on the Celeron B720 — a 34.1% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 FX-53. The Athlon 64 FX-53 uses the Clawhammer (2001−2005) architecture (130 nm), while the Celeron B720 uses Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 FX-53 scores 645 against the Celeron B720's 665 — a 3.1% lead for the Celeron B720. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon 64 FX-53 vs 1.5 MB (total) on the Celeron B720.

Feature	Athlon 64 FX-53	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	Clawhammer (2001−2005)	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
PassMark	645	665+3%
Geekbench 6 Single	350	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	350	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 64 FX-53 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 FX-53 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 FX-53) vs 16 (Celeron B720) — the Celeron B720 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: nForce3,nForce4,K8T800 (Athlon 64 FX-53) and HM65,HM67,QM67,QM77 (Celeron B720).

Feature	Athlon 64 FX-53	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

Only the Athlon 64 FX-53 has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Virtualization support: None (Athlon 64 FX-53) vs VT-x (Celeron B720). The Celeron B720 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)), while the Athlon 64 FX-53 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Athlon 64 FX-53 targets Legacy Desktop, Celeron B720 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron B720 rivals Pentium 967.

Feature	Athlon 64 FX-53	Celeron B720
Integrated GPU	No	Yes
IGPU Model	—	HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)
Unlocked	Yes	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	None	VT-x
Target Use	Legacy Desktop	Budget

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Athlon 64 FX-53 was priced at $799, while the Celeron B720 came in at $70. On launch pricing ($799 vs $70), Celeron B720 was $729 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 FX-53 delivers 0.8 pts/$ vs 9.5 pts/$ for the Celeron B720 — making the Celeron B720 the 168.7% better value option.

Feature	Athlon 64 FX-53	Celeron B720
MSRP	$799	$70-91%
Performance per Dollar	0.8	9.5+1087%
Release Date	2004	2012

Search Athlon 64 FX-53 on Amazon

Search Celeron B720 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.