Athlon 64 FX-57 vs Celeron 857

CPU

GPU

Athlon 64 FX-57

1 Cores1 Thrd104 WWMax: 2.8 GHz2005

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Celeron 857

2 Cores2 Thrd17 WWMax: 1.2 GHz2011

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Athlon 64 FX-57 vs Celeron 857 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 FX-57

1 / 1

720

+2.1%

Athlon 64 2600+

Athlon 64 3100+

Athlon 64 3400+

Mobile Athlon 64 3700+

Ryzen 7 PRO 6860Z

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron 857

2 / 2

705

0.0%

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-57 vs Celeron 857 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-57 vs Celeron 857: 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-57

2005

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 0.7 vs 5.3 PassMark/$ ($1,031 MSRP vs $134 MSRP).
❌511.8% higher power demand at 104W vs 17W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 857 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Celeron 857

2011

Why buy it

✅Costs $897 less on MSRP ($134 MSRP vs $1,031 MSRP).
✅Delivers 653.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 5.3 vs 0.7 PassMark/$ ($134 MSRP vs $1,031 MSRP).
✅Draws 17W instead of 104W, a 87W reduction.
✅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-57 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (705 vs 720).

Quick Answers

So, is Athlon 64 FX-57 better than Celeron 857?

Yes. Athlon 64 FX-57 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 2.1% 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-57 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.4% 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-57 is the stronger fit. You are getting 2.1% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Athlon 64 FX-57 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Athlon 64 FX-57 comes in 669.4% more expensive on MSRP at $1,031 MSRP versus $134 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron 857 only looks good on raw value math because it is a cheap legacy laptop chip, not because it is a real desktop gaming recommendation. It simply does not keep up in modern games, especially when the gap is already 1.4% in the shared gaming data.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Celeron 857 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2005). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Athlon 64 FX-57 vs Celeron 857 Technical Specifications

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

Athlon 64 FX-57

The Athlon 64 FX-57 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the San Diego (2001−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: 939. Thermal design power (TDP): 104 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 720 points. Launch price was $149.

Celeron 857

The Celeron 857 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 July 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.2 GHz, with boost up to 1.2 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1023. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 705 points. Launch price was $134.

⚡

Processing Power

The Athlon 64 FX-57 packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Celeron 857 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Celeron 857 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.8 GHz on the Athlon 64 FX-57 versus 1.2 GHz on the Celeron 857 — a 80% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 FX-57. The Athlon 64 FX-57 uses the San Diego (2001−2005) architecture (90 nm), while the Celeron 857 uses Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 FX-57 scores 720 against the Celeron 857's 705 — a 2.1% lead for the Athlon 64 FX-57. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon 64 FX-57 vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 857.

Feature	Athlon 64 FX-57	Celeron 857
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	2 / 2+100%
Boost Clock	2.8 GHz+133%	1.2 GHz
Base Clock	—	1.2 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB	256K (per core)+25500%
Process	90 nm	32 nm-64%
Architecture	San Diego (2001−2005)	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
PassMark	720+2%	705

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 64 FX-57 uses the 939 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron 857 uses BGA1023 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR-400 on the Athlon 64 FX-57 versus DDR3-1333 on the Celeron 857 — the Celeron 857 supports -433.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 857 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-57) vs 16 (Celeron 857) — the Celeron 857 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD 939 (Athlon 64 FX-57) and HM65,HM67 (Celeron 857).

Feature	Athlon 64 FX-57	Celeron 857
Socket	939	BGA1023
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

Virtualization: not specified (Athlon 64 FX-57) / VT-x (Celeron 857). The Celeron 857 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)), while the Athlon 64 FX-57 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 857 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 857 rivals Pentium 967.

Feature	Athlon 64 FX-57	Celeron 857
Integrated GPU	No	Yes
IGPU Model	—	HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	No
Virtualization	—	VT-x
Target Use	—	Budget

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Athlon 64 FX-57 was priced at $1031, while the Celeron 857 came in at $134. On launch pricing ($1031 vs $134), Celeron 857 was $897 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 FX-57 delivers 0.7 pts/$ vs 5.3 pts/$ for the Celeron 857 — making the Celeron 857 the 153.1% better value option.

Feature	Athlon 64 FX-57	Celeron 857
MSRP	$1031	$134-87%
Performance per Dollar	0.7	5.3+657%
Release Date	2005	2011

Search Athlon 64 FX-57 on Amazon

Search Celeron 857 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.