Athlon 64 FX-57 vs Celeron B820

CPU

GPU

Athlon 64 FX-57

1 Cores1 Thrd104 WWMax: 2.8 GHz2005

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Celeron B820

2 Cores2 Thrd35 WWMax: 1.7 GHz2012

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Athlon 64 FX-57 vs Celeron B820 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 FX-57

1 / 1

720

0.0%

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 B820

2 / 2

765

+6.3%

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 B820 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 B820: 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

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron B820 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (720 vs 765).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 0.7 vs 8.9 PassMark/$ ($1,031 MSRP vs $86 MSRP).
❌197.1% higher power demand at 104W vs 35W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron B820 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Celeron B820

2012

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +4.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $945 less on MSRP ($86 MSRP vs $1,031 MSRP).
✅Delivers 1173.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 8.9 vs 0.7 PassMark/$ ($86 MSRP vs $1,031 MSRP).
✅Draws 35W instead of 104W, a 69W 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 B820 better than Athlon 64 FX-57?

Yes. Celeron B820 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 4.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 6.3% 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 B820 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 4.0% 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 B820 is the stronger fit. You are getting 6.3% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron B820 is the better buy right now. Celeron B820 comes in $945 cheaper on MSRP at $86 MSRP versus $1,031 MSRP, and it still gives you a 4.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 1173.8% better value on MSRP (8.9 vs 0.7 PassMark/$), 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 B820 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2012 vs 2005) 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-57 vs Celeron B820 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 B820

The Celeron B820 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 1.7 GHz, with boost up to 1.7 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 765 points. Launch price was $86.

⚡

Processing Power

The Athlon 64 FX-57 packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Celeron B820 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Celeron B820 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.8 GHz on the Athlon 64 FX-57 versus 1.7 GHz on the Celeron B820 — a 48.9% 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 B820 uses Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 FX-57 scores 720 against the Celeron B820's 765 — a 6.1% lead for the Celeron B820. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon 64 FX-57 vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron B820.

Feature	Athlon 64 FX-57	Celeron B820
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	2 / 2+100%
Boost Clock	2.8 GHz+65%	1.7 GHz
Base Clock	—	1.7 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	765+6%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 64 FX-57 uses the 939 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron B820 uses PGA988 (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 B820 — the Celeron B820 supports -433.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron B820 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 B820) — the Celeron B820 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD 939 (Athlon 64 FX-57) and HM65,HM67,QM67,QM77 (Celeron B820).

Feature	Athlon 64 FX-57	Celeron B820
Socket	939	PGA988
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 B820). The Celeron B820 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)), while the Athlon 64 FX-57 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron B820 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron B820 rivals Pentium 967.

Feature	Athlon 64 FX-57	Celeron B820
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 B820 came in at $86. On launch pricing ($1031 vs $86), Celeron B820 was $945 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 FX-57 delivers 0.7 pts/$ vs 8.9 pts/$ for the Celeron B820 — making the Celeron B820 the 170.9% better value option.

Feature	Athlon 64 FX-57	Celeron B820
MSRP	$1031	$86-92%
Performance per Dollar	0.7	8.9+1171%
Release Date	2005	2012

Search Athlon 64 FX-57 on Amazon

Search Celeron B820 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.