Athlon 64 FX-72 vs Celeron Dual-Core T3000
Athlon 64 FX-72
Celeron Dual-Core T3000
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-72 is positioned at rank 1100 and the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 is on rank 824, so the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 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-72
Performance Per Dollar Celeron Dual-Core T3000
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon 64 FX-72 | Celeron Dual-Core T3000 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($40) | ✅ More affordable ($15) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Windsor (2006−2007) / 90 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Penryn-1M (2009) / 45 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon 64 FX-72 | Celeron Dual-Core T3000 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+167%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($40) | ✅ More affordable ($15) |
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.
Counter-Strike 2
Valorant
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Athlon 64 FX-72 and Celeron Dual-Core T3000
Athlon 64 FX-72
The Athlon 64 FX-72 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Windsor (2006−2007) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: F. Thermal design power (TDP): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR1. Passmark benchmark score: 1,794 points. Launch price was $149.
Celeron Dual-Core T3000
The Celeron Dual-Core T3000 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Penryn-1M (2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.8 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: P. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,797 points. Launch price was $69.
Processing Power
Both the Athlon 64 FX-72 and Celeron Dual-Core T3000 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.8 GHz on the Athlon 64 FX-72 versus 1.8 GHz on the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 — a 43.5% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 FX-72. The Athlon 64 FX-72 uses the Windsor (2006−2007) architecture (90 nm), while the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 uses Penryn-1M (2009) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 FX-72 scores 1,794 against the Celeron Dual-Core T3000's 1,797 — a 0.2% lead for the Celeron Dual-Core T3000.
| Feature | Athlon 64 FX-72 | Celeron Dual-Core T3000 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 2.8 GHz+56% | 1.8 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | — |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
| Process | 90 nm | 45 nm-50% |
| Architecture | Windsor (2006−2007) | Penryn-1M (2009) |
| PassMark | 1,794 | 1,797 |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon 64 FX-72 uses the F socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 uses P (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-800 on the Athlon 64 FX-72 versus DDR3-800 on the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 — the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 supports 40% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Athlon 64 FX-72 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Athlon 64 FX-72) vs 16 (Celeron Dual-Core T3000) — the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD F (1207) (Athlon 64 FX-72) and Mobile Intel 4 Series (Celeron Dual-Core T3000).
| Feature | Athlon 64 FX-72 | Celeron Dual-Core T3000 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | F | P |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 1.1 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR2-800 | DDR3-800+50% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 16 GB+100% | 8 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 16 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: not specified (Athlon 64 FX-72) / false (Celeron Dual-Core T3000).
| Feature | Athlon 64 FX-72 | Celeron Dual-Core T3000 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | — | No |
| AVX-512 | — | No |
| Virtualization | — | false |
Value Analysis
The Athlon 64 FX-72 launched at $799 MSRP, while the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 debuted at $80. At current prices ($40 vs $15), the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 is $25 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 FX-72 delivers 44.9 pts/$ vs 119.8 pts/$ for the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 — making the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 the 91% better value option.
| Feature | Athlon 64 FX-72 | Celeron Dual-Core T3000 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $799 | $80-90% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $40 | $15-63% |
| Performance per Dollar | 44.9 | 119.8+167% |
| Release Date | 2006 | 2009 |
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-72 and Celeron Dual-Core T3000
