Athlon 64 FX-60 vs Celeron 3965Y
Athlon 64 FX-60
Celeron 3965Y
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Athlon 64 FX-60 is positioned at rank 1119 and the Celeron 3965Y is on rank 198, so the Celeron 3965Y offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Athlon 64 FX-60
Performance Per Dollar Celeron 3965Y
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon 64 FX-60 | Celeron 3965Y |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($1,000) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Toledo (2006) / 90 nm) | ✨ Modern (Kaby Lake (2016−2019) / 14 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon 64 FX-60 | Celeron 3965Y |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($1,000) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
Performance Check
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Athlon 64 FX-60 and Celeron 3965Y
Athlon 64 FX-60
The Athlon 64 FX-60 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Toledo (2006) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: 939. Thermal design power (TDP): 110 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 1,205 points. Launch price was $149.
Celeron 3965Y
The Celeron 3965Y is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Kaby Lake (2016−2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.5 GHz, with boost up to 1.3 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1515. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,201 points. Launch price was $69.
Processing Power
Both the Athlon 64 FX-60 and Celeron 3965Y share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the Athlon 64 FX-60 versus 1.3 GHz on the Celeron 3965Y — a 66.7% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 FX-60. The Athlon 64 FX-60 uses the Toledo (2006) architecture (90 nm), while the Celeron 3965Y uses Kaby Lake (2016−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 FX-60 scores 1,205 against the Celeron 3965Y's 1,201 — a 0.3% lead for the Athlon 64 FX-60. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 250 vs 372, a 39.2% lead for the Celeron 3965Y that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 480 vs 708 (38.4% advantage for the Celeron 3965Y). L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon 64 FX-60 vs 2 MB on the Celeron 3965Y.
| Feature | Athlon 64 FX-60 | Celeron 3965Y |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 2.6 GHz+100% | 1.3 GHz |
| Base Clock | — | 1.5 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 2 MB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+300% | 512 kB |
| Process | 90 nm | 14 nm-84% |
| Architecture | Toledo (2006) | Kaby Lake (2016−2019) |
| PassMark | 1,205 | 1,201 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 250 | 372+49% |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 480 | 708+48% |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon 64 FX-60 uses the 939 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron 3965Y uses FCBGA1515 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR-400 on the Athlon 64 FX-60 versus LPDDR3-1866 on the Celeron 3965Y — the Celeron 3965Y supports -203% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 3965Y supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 120% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Athlon 64 FX-60) vs 10 (Celeron 3965Y) — the Celeron 3965Y offers 10 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: nForce4,K8T890 (Athlon 64 FX-60) and SoC (Celeron 3965Y).
| Feature | Athlon 64 FX-60 | Celeron 3965Y |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | 939 | FCBGA1515 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 3.0+173% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR-400 | LPDDR3-1866 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 4 GB | 16 GB+300% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 10 |
Advanced Features
Only the Athlon 64 FX-60 has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Virtualization support: None (Athlon 64 FX-60) vs VT-x, VT-d (Celeron 3965Y). The Celeron 3965Y includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics 615), while the Athlon 64 FX-60 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Athlon 64 FX-60 targets Gaming/Enthusiast, Celeron 3965Y targets Low Power. Direct competitor: Celeron 3965Y rivals Pentium Gold 4415Y.
| Feature | Athlon 64 FX-60 | Celeron 3965Y |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | Intel HD Graphics 615 |
| Unlocked | Yes | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | None | VT-x, VT-d |
| Target Use | Gaming/Enthusiast | Low Power |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Athlon 64 FX-60 and Celeron 3965Y
