Chipversus Index
Jump to Section

Athlon 64 FX-55 vs Celeron E1200

CPUCPUGPUGPU
AMD

Athlon 64 FX-55

1 Cores1 Thrd104 WWMax: 2.6 GHz2004
Similar parts
·······
Buy on Amazon
VS
Intel

Celeron E1200

2 Cores2 Thrd65 WWMax: 1.6 GHz2008
Similar parts
·······
Buy on Amazon

Athlon 64 FX-55 vs Celeron E1200 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 FX-55
1 / 1
690
+3.8%
brand logoAthlon MP 2800+
brand logoAthlon 64 3000+
brand logoAthlon 64 3300+
brand logoAthlon 64 3600+
brand logoRyzen 7 PRO 6860Z
brand logoRyzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX
brand logoRyzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX
brand logoRyzen Threadripper 3990X
Celeron E1200
2 / 2
665
0.0%
brand logoPentium 4 2.60
brand logoPentium M 1.70
brand logoPentium M 760
brand logoCore Duo T2050
brand logoCore i7-1370P
brand logoCore Ultra 5 245HX
brand logoCore Ultra 7 265KF
brand logoXeon w9-3575X

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-55 vs Celeron E1200 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.

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

1080P
Athlon 64 FX-55
low17 FPS
medium17 FPS
high17 FPS
ultra17 FPS
1080P
Celeron E1200
low17 FPS
medium17 FPS
high17 FPS
ultra17 FPS
Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

1080P
Athlon 64 FX-55
low17 FPS
medium17 FPS
high17 FPS
ultra17 FPS
1080P
Celeron E1200
low17 FPS
medium17 FPS
high17 FPS
ultra17 FPS
League of Legends

League of Legends

1080P
Athlon 64 FX-55
low17 FPS
medium17 FPS
high17 FPS
ultra17 FPS
1080P
Celeron E1200
low17 FPS
medium17 FPS
high17 FPS
ultra17 FPS
Valorant

Valorant

1080P
Athlon 64 FX-55
low17 FPS
medium17 FPS
high17 FPS
ultra17 FPS
1080P
Celeron E1200
low17 FPS
medium17 FPS
high17 FPS
ultra17 FPS
Among Us

Among Us

1080P
Athlon 64 FX-55
low17 FPS
medium17 FPS
high17 FPS
ultra17 FPS
1080P
Celeron E1200
low17 FPS
medium17 FPS
high17 FPS
ultra17 FPS
Apex Legends

Apex Legends

1080P
Athlon 64 FX-55
low17 FPS
medium17 FPS
high17 FPS
ultra17 FPS
1080P
Celeron E1200
low17 FPS
medium17 FPS
high17 FPS
ultra17 FPS
ARC Raiders

ARC Raiders

1080P
Athlon 64 FX-55
low17 FPS
medium17 FPS
high17 FPS
ultra17 FPS
1080P
Celeron E1200
low17 FPS
medium17 FPS
high17 FPS
ultra17 FPS
Baldur's Gate 3

Baldur's Gate 3

1080P
Athlon 64 FX-55
low17 FPS
medium17 FPS
high17 FPS
ultra17 FPS
1080P
Celeron E1200
low17 FPS
medium17 FPS
high17 FPS
ultra17 FPS
Call of Duty: Black Ops 6

Call of Duty: Black Ops 6

1080P
Athlon 64 FX-55
low17 FPS
medium17 FPS
high17 FPS
ultra17 FPS
1080P
Celeron E1200
low17 FPS
medium17 FPS
high17 FPS
ultra17 FPS
Call of Duty: Warzone

Call of Duty: Warzone

1080P
Athlon 64 FX-55
low17 FPS
medium17 FPS
high17 FPS
ultra17 FPS
1080P
Celeron E1200
low17 FPS
medium17 FPS
high17 FPS
ultra17 FPS
Check FPS with Custom Builds

Athlon 64 FX-55 vs Celeron E1200: 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-55

2004

Why buy it

    Trade-offs

    • ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 0.8 vs 12.5 PassMark/$ ($827 MSRP vs $53 MSRP).
    • ❌60% higher power demand at 104W vs 65W.

    Celeron E1200

    2008

    Why buy it

    • ✅Costs $774 less on MSRP ($53 MSRP vs $827 MSRP).
    • ✅Delivers 1403.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 12.5 vs 0.8 PassMark/$ ($53 MSRP vs $827 MSRP).
    • ✅Draws 65W instead of 104W, a 39W reduction.

    Trade-offs

    • ❌Lower PassMark (665 vs 690).

    Quick Answers

    So, is Athlon 64 FX-55 better than Celeron E1200?
    Yes. Athlon 64 FX-55 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 3.8% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.
    Which one is better for gaming?
    If gaming is the priority, Athlon 64 FX-55 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.1% 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, Athlon 64 FX-55 is the stronger fit. You are getting 3.8% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.
    Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
    Athlon 64 FX-55 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Athlon 64 FX-55 comes in 1460.4% more expensive on MSRP at $827 MSRP versus $53 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron E1200 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2008 platform. Even with 1403.8% better value on paper (12.5 vs 0.8 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on LGA775.
    Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
    Celeron E1200 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2008 vs 2004). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

    Athlon 64 FX-55 vs Celeron E1200 Technical Specifications

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

    AMD

    Athlon 64 FX-55

    The Athlon 64 FX-55 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2004 (21 years ago). It is based on the Clawhammer (2001−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Base frequency is 2.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 939. Thermal design power (TDP): 104 Watt. Memory support: DDR1 Depends on motherboard. Passmark benchmark score: 690 points. Launch price was $180.

    Intel

    Celeron E1200

    The Celeron E1200 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 January 2008 (17 years ago). It is based on the Allendale (2006−2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (total). Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 665 points. Launch price was $40.

    ⚡

    Processing Power

    The Athlon 64 FX-55 packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Celeron E1200 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Celeron E1200 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the Athlon 64 FX-55 versus 1.6 GHz on the Celeron E1200 — a 47.6% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 FX-55 (base: 2.6 GHz vs 1.6 GHz). The Athlon 64 FX-55 uses the Clawhammer (2001−2005) architecture (130 nm), while the Celeron E1200 uses Allendale (2006−2009) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 FX-55 scores 690 against the Celeron E1200's 665 — a 3.7% lead for the Athlon 64 FX-55. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

    FeatureAthlon 64 FX-55Celeron E1200
    Cores / Threads
    1 / 1
    2 / 2+100%
    Boost Clock
    2.6 GHz+63%
    1.6 GHz
    Base Clock
    2.6 GHz+63%
    1.6 GHz
    L3 Cache
    0 kB
    0 kB
    L2 Cache
    1 MB+100%
    512 kB (total)
    Process
    130 nm
    65 nm-50%
    Architecture
    Clawhammer (2001−2005)
    Allendale (2006−2009)
    PassMark
    690+4%
    665
    Geekbench 6 Single
    —
    210
    Geekbench 6 Multi
    —
    380
    🧠

    Memory & Platform

    The Athlon 64 FX-55 uses the 939 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron E1200 uses LGA775 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR1-400 on the Athlon 64 FX-55 versus DDR2-800 on the Celeron E1200 — the Celeron E1200 supports 100% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron E1200 supports up to 8 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: nForce3,nForce4,Xpress 200 (Athlon 64 FX-55) and G31,P35,G41 (Celeron E1200).

    FeatureAthlon 64 FX-55Celeron E1200
    Socket
    939
    LGA775
    PCIe Generation
    PCIe 1.1
    PCIe 1.1
    Max RAM Speed
    DDR1-400
    DDR2-800+100%
    Max RAM Capacity
    4 GB
    8 GB+100%
    RAM Channels
    2
    2
    ECC Support
    No
    No
    PCIe Lanes
    0
    0
    🔧

    Advanced Features

    Virtualization: not specified (Athlon 64 FX-55) / No (Celeron E1200). Primary use case: Celeron E1200 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron E1200 rivals Pentium E2140.

    FeatureAthlon 64 FX-55Celeron E1200
    Integrated GPU
    No
    No
    Unlocked
    —
    No
    AVX-512
    —
    No
    Virtualization
    —
    No
    Target Use
    —
    Budget
    💰

    Value Analysis

    At launch, the Athlon 64 FX-55 was priced at $827, while the Celeron E1200 came in at $53. On launch pricing ($827 vs $53), Celeron E1200 was $774 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 FX-55 delivers 0.8 pts/$ vs 12.5 pts/$ for the Celeron E1200 — making the Celeron E1200 the 175.1% better value option.

    FeatureAthlon 64 FX-55Celeron E1200
    MSRP
    $827
    $53-94%
    Performance per Dollar
    0.8
    12.5+1462%
    Release Date
    2004
    2008
    Search Athlon 64 FX-55 on AmazonSearch Celeron E1200 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.