
Athlon 64 FX-57

Celeron 877
Athlon 64 FX-57 vs Celeron 877 Performance Spectrum
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 877 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

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Valorant

Among Us

Apex Legends

ARC Raiders

Baldur's Gate 3

Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
Athlon 64 FX-57 vs Celeron 877: 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
2005Why buy it
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron 877 across 49 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (720 vs 805).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 0.7 vs 9.4 PassMark/$ ($1,031 MSRP vs $86 MSRP).
- ❌511.8% higher power demand at 104W vs 17W.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 877 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Celeron 877
2012Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +9.4% higher average FPS across 49 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $945 less on MSRP ($86 MSRP vs $1,031 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 1240.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 9.4 vs 0.7 PassMark/$ ($86 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.
Trade-offs
- ❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.
Quick Answers
So, is Celeron 877 better than Athlon 64 FX-57?
Which one is better for gaming?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Athlon 64 FX-57 vs Celeron 877 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 877
The Celeron 877 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 July 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.4 GHz, with boost up to 1.4 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: 805 points. Launch price was $86.
Processing Power
The Athlon 64 FX-57 packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Celeron 877 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Celeron 877 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.8 GHz on the Athlon 64 FX-57 versus 1.4 GHz on the Celeron 877 — a 66.7% 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 877 uses Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 FX-57 scores 720 against the Celeron 877's 805 — a 11.1% lead for the Celeron 877. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon 64 FX-57 vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 877.
| Feature | Athlon 64 FX-57 | Celeron 877 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 1 / 1 | 2 / 2+100% |
| Boost Clock | 2.8 GHz+100% | 1.4 GHz |
| Base Clock | — | 1.4 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 | 805+12% |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon 64 FX-57 uses the 939 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron 877 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 877 — the Celeron 877 supports -433.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 877 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 877) — the Celeron 877 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD 939 (Athlon 64 FX-57) and HM65,HM67,HM75,HM76,HM77 (Celeron 877).
| Feature | Athlon 64 FX-57 | Celeron 877 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 877). The Celeron 877 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)), while the Athlon 64 FX-57 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 877 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 877 rivals Pentium 967.
| Feature | Athlon 64 FX-57 | Celeron 877 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 877 came in at $86. On launch pricing ($1031 vs $86), Celeron 877 was $945 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 FX-57 delivers 0.7 pts/$ vs 9.4 pts/$ for the Celeron 877 — making the Celeron 877 the 172.2% better value option.
| Feature | Athlon 64 FX-57 | Celeron 877 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $1031 | $86-92% |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.7 | 9.4+1243% |
| Release Date | 2005 | 2012 |
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.
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
















