Chipversus Index
Jump to Section

Athlon 64 FX-57 vs Celeron T1600

CPUCPUGPUGPU
AMD

Athlon 64 FX-57

1 Cores1 Thrd104 WWMax: 2.8 GHz2005
Similar parts
·······
Buy on Amazon
VS
Intel

Celeron T1600

35 WW2008
Similar parts
·······
Buy on Amazon

Athlon 64 FX-57 vs Celeron T1600 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 FX-57
1 / 1
720
+0.7%
brand logoAthlon 64 2600+
brand logoAthlon 64 3100+
brand logoAthlon 64 3400+
brand logoMobile Athlon 64 3700+
brand logoRyzen 7 PRO 6860Z
brand logoRyzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX
brand logoRyzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX
brand logoRyzen Threadripper 3990X
Celeron T1600
715
0.0%
brand logoMobile Pentium 4 2.66
brand logoCeleron 560
brand logoAtom S1260
brand logoCeleron U3600
brand logoCore i7-1280P
brand logoCore Ultra 5 245HX
brand logoCore Ultra 7 265KF
brand logoXeon w9-3575X

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 T1600 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

Path of Exile 2

1080P
Athlon 64 FX-57
low18 FPS
medium18 FPS
high18 FPS
ultra18 FPS
1080P
Celeron T1600
low18 FPS
medium18 FPS
high18 FPS
ultra18 FPS
Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

1080P
Athlon 64 FX-57
low18 FPS
medium18 FPS
high18 FPS
ultra18 FPS
1080P
Celeron T1600
low18 FPS
medium18 FPS
high18 FPS
ultra18 FPS
League of Legends

League of Legends

1080P
Athlon 64 FX-57
low18 FPS
medium18 FPS
high18 FPS
ultra18 FPS
1080P
Celeron T1600
low18 FPS
medium18 FPS
high18 FPS
ultra18 FPS
Valorant

Valorant

1080P
Athlon 64 FX-57
low18 FPS
medium18 FPS
high18 FPS
ultra18 FPS
1080P
Celeron T1600
low18 FPS
medium18 FPS
high18 FPS
ultra18 FPS
Among Us

Among Us

1080P
Athlon 64 FX-57
low18 FPS
medium18 FPS
high18 FPS
ultra18 FPS
1080P
Celeron T1600
low18 FPS
medium18 FPS
high18 FPS
ultra18 FPS
Apex Legends

Apex Legends

1080P
Athlon 64 FX-57
low18 FPS
medium18 FPS
high18 FPS
ultra18 FPS
1080P
Celeron T1600
low18 FPS
medium18 FPS
high18 FPS
ultra18 FPS
ARC Raiders

ARC Raiders

1080P
Athlon 64 FX-57
low18 FPS
medium18 FPS
high18 FPS
ultra18 FPS
1080P
Celeron T1600
low18 FPS
medium18 FPS
high18 FPS
ultra18 FPS
Baldur's Gate 3

Baldur's Gate 3

1080P
Athlon 64 FX-57
low18 FPS
medium18 FPS
high18 FPS
ultra18 FPS
1080P
Celeron T1600
low18 FPS
medium18 FPS
high18 FPS
ultra18 FPS
Call of Duty: Black Ops 6

Call of Duty: Black Ops 6

1080P
Athlon 64 FX-57
low18 FPS
medium18 FPS
high18 FPS
ultra18 FPS
1080P
Celeron T1600
low18 FPS
medium18 FPS
high14 FPS
ultra9 FPS
Call of Duty: Warzone

Call of Duty: Warzone

1080P
Athlon 64 FX-57
low18 FPS
medium18 FPS
high18 FPS
ultra18 FPS
1080P
Celeron T1600
low18 FPS
medium18 FPS
high18 FPS
ultra18 FPS
Check FPS with Custom Builds

Athlon 64 FX-57 vs Celeron T1600: 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 6.7 PassMark/$ ($1,031 MSRP vs $107 MSRP).
    • ❌197.1% higher power demand at 104W vs 35W.

    Celeron T1600

    2008

    Why buy it

    • ✅Costs $924 less on MSRP ($107 MSRP vs $1,031 MSRP).
    • ✅Delivers 856.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 6.7 vs 0.7 PassMark/$ ($107 MSRP vs $1,031 MSRP).
    • ✅Draws 35W instead of 104W, a 69W reduction.

    Trade-offs

    • ❌Lower PassMark (715 vs 720).

    Quick Answers

    So, is Athlon 64 FX-57 better than Celeron T1600?
    Yes. Athlon 64 FX-57 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you 0.7% 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 0.7% stronger overall PassMark.
    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 0.7% 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 still the much better call for a fresh build. Athlon 64 FX-57 comes in 863.6% more expensive on MSRP at $1,031 MSRP versus $107 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.7% higher PassMark. Celeron T1600 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2008 platform. Even with 856.9% better value on paper (6.7 vs 0.7 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on PGA478.
    Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
    Celeron T1600 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2008 vs 2005). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

    Athlon 64 FX-57 vs Celeron T1600 Technical Specifications

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

    AMD

    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.

    Intel

    Celeron T1600

    The Celeron T1600 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. Base frequency: 1.66 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 715 points. Launch price was $69.

    ⚡

    Processing Power

    The Athlon 64 FX-57 is built on the San Diego (2001−2005) architecture. In PassMark, the Athlon 64 FX-57 scores 720 against the Celeron T1600's 715 — a 0.7% lead for the Athlon 64 FX-57. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon 64 FX-57 vs 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron T1600.

    FeatureAthlon 64 FX-57Celeron T1600
    Cores / Threads
    1 / 1
    —
    Boost Clock
    2.8 GHz
    —
    Base Clock
    —
    1.66 GHz
    L3 Cache
    0 kB
    1 MB L2 Cache
    L2 Cache
    1 MB
    —
    Process
    90 nm
    65 nm-28%
    Architecture
    San Diego (2001−2005)
    —
    PassMark
    720
    715
    🧠

    Memory & Platform

    The Athlon 64 FX-57 uses the 939 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron T1600 uses PGA478 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

    FeatureAthlon 64 FX-57Celeron T1600
    Socket
    939
    PGA478
    PCIe Generation
    PCIe 1.1
    PCIe 2.0+82%
    Max RAM Speed
    DDR-400
    —
    Max RAM Capacity
    4 GB
    —
    RAM Channels
    2
    —
    ECC Support
    No
    —
    PCIe Lanes
    0
    —
    💰

    Value Analysis

    At launch, the Athlon 64 FX-57 was priced at $1031, while the Celeron T1600 came in at $107. On launch pricing ($1031 vs $107), Celeron T1600 was $924 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 FX-57 delivers 0.7 pts/$ vs 6.7 pts/$ for the Celeron T1600 — making the Celeron T1600 the 162.2% better value option.

    FeatureAthlon 64 FX-57Celeron T1600
    MSRP
    $1031
    $107-90%
    Performance per Dollar
    0.7
    6.7+857%
    Release Date
    2005
    2008
    Search Athlon 64 FX-57 on AmazonSearch Celeron T1600 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.