Athlon 64 FX-72 vs Celeron Dual-Core T3000

Athlon 64 FX-72 vs Celeron Dual-Core T3000 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 FX-72

2 / 2

1,794

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron Dual-Core T3000

2 / 2

1,797

+0.2%

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-72 vs Celeron Dual-Core T3000 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-72 vs Celeron Dual-Core T3000: 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-72

2006

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,794 vs 1,797).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 2.2 vs 22.5 PassMark/$ ($799 MSRP vs $80 MSRP).
❌12400% higher power demand at 125W vs 1W.

Celeron Dual-Core T3000

2009

Why buy it

✅+0.2% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $719 less on MSRP ($80 MSRP vs $799 MSRP).
✅Delivers 900.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 22.5 vs 2.2 PassMark/$ ($80 MSRP vs $799 MSRP).
✅Draws 1W instead of 125W, a 124W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron Dual-Core T3000 better than Athlon 64 FX-72?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Athlon 64 FX-72 is ahead with a 1.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron Dual-Core T3000 pulls ahead with 0.2% better PassMark.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron Dual-Core T3000 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron Dual-Core T3000 is the better buy right now. Celeron Dual-Core T3000 comes in $719 cheaper on MSRP at $80 MSRP versus $799 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.2% better PassMark. The compromise is that Athlon 64 FX-72 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 1.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 900.4% better value on MSRP (22.5 vs 2.2 PassMark/$), 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 Dual-Core T3000 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2009 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-72 vs Celeron Dual-Core T3000 Technical Specifications

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

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. Both support up to DDR2-800 memory speed. The Athlon 64 FX-72 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 100% 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
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+100%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
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

At launch, the Athlon 64 FX-72 was priced at $799, while the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 came in at $80. On launch pricing ($799 vs $80), Celeron Dual-Core T3000 was $719 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 FX-72 delivers 2.2 pts/$ vs 22.5 pts/$ for the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 — making the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 the 163.7% better value option.

Feature	Athlon 64 FX-72	Celeron Dual-Core T3000
MSRP	$799	$80-90%
Performance per Dollar	2.2	22.5+923%
Release Date	2006	2009

Search Athlon 64 FX-72 on Amazon

Search Celeron Dual-Core T3000 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.