Athlon 64 FX-57 vs Celeron N3000

Athlon 64 FX-57 vs Celeron N3000 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 N3000

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 N3000 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 N3000: 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

❌Launch MSRP is still $1,031 MSRP, while Celeron N3000 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌5100% higher power demand at 104W vs 2W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron N3000 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Celeron N3000

2015

Why buy it

✅Draws 2W instead of 104W, a 102W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics 400, 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 N3000?

Yes. Athlon 64 FX-57 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you 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 has the edge because it leads the single-thread side of this matchup with 34.6% higher max boost clock.

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 better buy right now. Athlon 64 FX-57 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $1,031 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 2.1% higher PassMark. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (0.7 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 N3000 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 vs 2005). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Athlon 64 FX-57 vs Celeron N3000 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 N3000

The Celeron N3000 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 April 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Braswell (2015−2016) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.04 GHz, with boost up to 2.08 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 4 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 705 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

The Athlon 64 FX-57 packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Celeron N3000 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Celeron N3000 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.8 GHz on the Athlon 64 FX-57 versus 2.08 GHz on the Celeron N3000 — a 29.5% 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 N3000 uses Braswell (2015−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 FX-57 scores 720 against the Celeron N3000's 705 — a 2.1% lead for the Athlon 64 FX-57. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Athlon 64 FX-57	Celeron N3000
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	2 / 2+100%
Boost Clock	2.8 GHz+35%	2.08 GHz
Base Clock	—	1.04 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB	1 MB
Process	90 nm	14 nm-84%
Architecture	San Diego (2001−2005)	Braswell (2015−2016)
PassMark	720+2%	705
Geekbench 6 Single	—	160
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	290

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 64 FX-57 uses the 939 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron N3000 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR-400 on the Athlon 64 FX-57 versus DDR3L-1600 on the Celeron N3000 — the Celeron N3000 supports -500% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron N3000 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. PCIe lanes: 0 (Athlon 64 FX-57) vs 4 (Celeron N3000) — the Celeron N3000 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD 939 (Athlon 64 FX-57) and SoC (Celeron N3000).

Feature	Athlon 64 FX-57	Celeron N3000
Socket	939	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 3.0+173%
Max RAM Speed	DDR-400	DDR3L-1600
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	8 GB+100%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Athlon 64 FX-57) / VT-x, VT-d (Celeron N3000). The Celeron N3000 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics 400), while the Athlon 64 FX-57 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron N3000 targets Budget Laptop. Direct competitor: Celeron N3000 rivals AMD E2-7110.