Athlon 64 FX-60 vs Celeron J3355

Athlon 64 FX-60 vs Celeron J3355 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 FX-60

2 / 2

1,205

+0.2%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron J3355

2 / 2

1,203

0.0%

Atom E3827

Celeron 877

Pentium Dual-Core E2180

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-60 vs Celeron J3355 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-60 vs Celeron J3355: 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-60

2006

Why buy it

✅Includes a boxed cooler (Stock Cooler), unlike Celeron J3355.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (250 vs 450).
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (480 vs 850).
❌Launch MSRP is still $1,031 MSRP, while Celeron J3355 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌1000% higher power demand at 110W vs 10W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron J3355 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Celeron J3355

2016

Why buy it

✅+80% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
✅Draws 10W instead of 110W, a 100W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (6 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics 500, while Athlon 64 FX-60 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Athlon 64 FX-60.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron J3355 better than Athlon 64 FX-60?

Yes. Celeron J3355 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 77.1% better Geekbench multi-core, 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 J3355 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.1% 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 J3355 is the stronger fit. You are getting 77.1% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron J3355 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Celeron J3355 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $1,031 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Athlon 64 FX-60 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2006 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (1.2 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on 939.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Celeron J3355 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2016 vs 2006) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Athlon 64 FX-60 vs Celeron J3355 Technical Specifications

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

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 J3355

The Celeron J3355 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 30 August 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Apollo Lake (2014−2016) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2.5 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1296. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Memory support: DDR3, DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 1,203 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Athlon 64 FX-60 and Celeron J3355 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the Athlon 64 FX-60 versus 2.5 GHz on the Celeron J3355 — a 3.9% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 FX-60. The Athlon 64 FX-60 uses the Toledo (2006) architecture (90 nm), while the Celeron J3355 uses Apollo Lake (2014−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 FX-60 scores 1,205 against the Celeron J3355's 1,203 — a 0.2% lead for the Athlon 64 FX-60. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 250 vs 450, a 57.1% lead for the Celeron J3355 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 480 vs 850 (55.6% advantage for the Celeron J3355). Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Athlon 64 FX-60	Celeron J3355
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.6 GHz+4%	2.5 GHz
Base Clock	—	2 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	2 MB+100%	1 MB
Process	90 nm	14 nm-84%
Architecture	Toledo (2006)	Apollo Lake (2014−2016)
PassMark	1,205	1,203
Geekbench 6 Single	250	450+80%
Geekbench 6 Multi	480	850+77%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 64 FX-60 uses the 939 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron J3355 uses FCBGA1296 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR-400 on the Athlon 64 FX-60 versus DDR4-2400 on the Celeron J3355 — the Celeron J3355 supports -700% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron J3355 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-60) vs 6 (Celeron J3355) — the Celeron J3355 offers 6 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: nForce4,K8T890 (Athlon 64 FX-60) and N/A (SoC) (Celeron J3355).

Feature	Athlon 64 FX-60	Celeron J3355
Socket	939	FCBGA1296
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 3.0+173%
Max RAM Speed	DDR-400	DDR4-2400
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	8 GB+100%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	6

🔧

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 (Celeron J3355). The Celeron J3355 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics 500), while the Athlon 64 FX-60 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Athlon 64 FX-60 targets Gaming/Enthusiast, Celeron J3355 targets Low Power. Direct competitor: Celeron J3355 rivals Pentium J4205.