Athlon 64 FX-60 vs Celeron N3160

Athlon 64 FX-60 vs Celeron N3160 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 FX-60

2 / 2

1,205

+0.8%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron N3160

4 / 4

1,195

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-60 vs Celeron N3160 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 N3160: 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 N3160.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $1,031 MSRP, while Celeron N3160 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌2650% higher power demand at 110W vs 4W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron N3160 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Celeron N3160

2016

Why buy it

✅Draws 4W instead of 110W, a 106W 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-60 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,195 vs 1,205).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Athlon 64 FX-60.

Quick Answers

So, is Athlon 64 FX-60 better than Celeron N3160?

Yes. Athlon 64 FX-60 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.8% 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-60 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.2% 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, Athlon 64 FX-60 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.8% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Athlon 64 FX-60 is the better buy right now. Athlon 64 FX-60 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $1,031 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (1.2 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 N3160 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2016 vs 2006). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Athlon 64 FX-60 vs Celeron N3160 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 N3160

The Celeron N3160 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 15 January 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Braswell (2015−2016) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.24 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,195 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

The Athlon 64 FX-60 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Celeron N3160 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Celeron N3160 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the Athlon 64 FX-60 versus 2.24 GHz on the Celeron N3160 — a 14.9% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 FX-60. The Athlon 64 FX-60 uses the Toledo (2006) architecture (90 nm), while the Celeron N3160 uses Braswell (2015−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 FX-60 scores 1,205 against the Celeron N3160's 1,195 — a 0.8% lead for the Athlon 64 FX-60. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Athlon 64 FX-60	Celeron N3160
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	2.6 GHz+16%	2.24 GHz
Base Clock	—	1.6 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	2 MB	2 MB
Process	90 nm	14 nm-84%
Architecture	Toledo (2006)	Braswell (2015−2016)
PassMark	1,205	1,195
Geekbench 6 Single	250	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	480	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 64 FX-60 uses the 939 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron N3160 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR-400 on the Athlon 64 FX-60 versus 1600 on the Celeron N3160 — the Celeron N3160 supports -500% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron N3160 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 4 (Celeron N3160) — the Celeron N3160 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: nForce4,K8T890 (Athlon 64 FX-60) and FCBGA1170 (Celeron N3160).

Feature	Athlon 64 FX-60	Celeron N3160
Socket	939	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 3.0+173%
Max RAM Speed	DDR-400	1600
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	8 GB+100%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	4

🔧

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 true (Celeron N3160). The Celeron N3160 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics 400), while the Athlon 64 FX-60 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Athlon 64 FX-60 targets Gaming/Enthusiast. Direct competitor: Celeron N3160 rivals AMD E2-9010.