Athlon 64 FX-55 vs Celeron E1400

CPU

GPU

Athlon 64 FX-55

1 Cores1 Thrd104 WWMax: 2.6 GHz2004

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Celeron E1400

2 Cores2 Thrd65 WWMax: 2 GHz2008

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Athlon 64 FX-55 vs Celeron E1400 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 FX-55

1 / 1

690

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron E1400

2 / 2

715

+3.6%

Mobile Pentium 4 2.66

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 E1400 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-55 vs Celeron E1400: 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

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron E1400 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (690 vs 715).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 0.8 vs 13.5 PassMark/$ ($827 MSRP vs $53 MSRP).
❌60% higher power demand at 104W vs 65W.

Celeron E1400

2008

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +5.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $774 less on MSRP ($53 MSRP vs $827 MSRP).
✅Delivers 1516.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 13.5 vs 0.8 PassMark/$ ($53 MSRP vs $827 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 104W, a 39W reduction.

Trade-offs

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

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron E1400 better than Athlon 64 FX-55?

Yes. Celeron E1400 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 5.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 3.6% 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 E1400 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 5.7% 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 E1400 is the stronger fit. You are getting 3.6% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron E1400 is the better buy right now. Celeron E1400 comes in $774 cheaper on MSRP at $53 MSRP versus $827 MSRP, and it still gives you a 5.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 1516.9% better value on MSRP (13.5 vs 0.8 PassMark/$), 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 E1400 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2008 vs 2004) 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 FX-55 vs Celeron E1400 Technical Specifications

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

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.

Celeron E1400

The Celeron E1400 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 April 2008 (17 years ago). It is based on the Allendale (2006−2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2 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: 715 points. Launch price was $57.

⚡

Processing Power

The Athlon 64 FX-55 packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Celeron E1400 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Celeron E1400 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the Athlon 64 FX-55 versus 2 GHz on the Celeron E1400 — a 26.1% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 FX-55 (base: 2.6 GHz vs 2 GHz). The Athlon 64 FX-55 uses the Clawhammer (2001−2005) architecture (130 nm), while the Celeron E1400 uses Allendale (2006−2009) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 FX-55 scores 690 against the Celeron E1400's 715 — a 3.6% lead for the Celeron E1400. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Athlon 64 FX-55	Celeron E1400
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	2 / 2+100%
Boost Clock	2.6 GHz+30%	2 GHz
Base Clock	2.6 GHz+30%	2 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	715+4%
Geekbench 6 Single	—	260
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	470

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 64 FX-55 uses the 939 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron E1400 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 E1400 — the Celeron E1400 supports 100% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron E1400 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 E1400).

Feature	Athlon 64 FX-55	Celeron E1400
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 E1400). Primary use case: Celeron E1400 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron E1400 rivals Pentium E2180.

Feature	Athlon 64 FX-55	Celeron E1400
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 E1400 came in at $53. On launch pricing ($827 vs $53), Celeron E1400 was $774 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 FX-55 delivers 0.8 pts/$ vs 13.5 pts/$ for the Celeron E1400 — making the Celeron E1400 the 176.7% better value option.

Feature	Athlon 64 FX-55	Celeron E1400
MSRP	$827	$53-94%
Performance per Dollar	0.8	13.5+1587%
Release Date	2004	2008

Search Athlon 64 FX-55 on Amazon

Search Celeron E1400 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.