Athlon 64 FX-55 vs Celeron E1400
Athlon 64 FX-55
Celeron E1400
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-55 is positioned at rank 1134 and the Celeron E1400 is on rank 930, so the Celeron E1400 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-55
Performance Per Dollar Celeron E1400
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon 64 FX-55 | Celeron E1400 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($50) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($63) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Clawhammer (2001−2005) / 130 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Allendale (2006−2009) / 65 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon 64 FX-55 | Celeron E1400 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+22%) | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($50) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($63) |
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-55 and Celeron E1400
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 66.7% 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 — 66.7% 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 | ❌ | ❌ |
| 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
The Athlon 64 FX-55 launched at $827 MSRP, while the Celeron E1400 debuted at $53. At current prices ($50 vs $63), the Athlon 64 FX-55 is $13 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 FX-55 delivers 13.8 pts/$ vs 11.3 pts/$ for the Celeron E1400 — making the Athlon 64 FX-55 the 19.5% better value option.
| Feature | Athlon 64 FX-55 | Celeron E1400 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $827 | $53-94% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $50-21% | $63 |
| Performance per Dollar | 13.8+22% | 11.3 |
| Release Date | 2004 | 2008 |
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-55 and Celeron E1400
