Athlon 64 TF-20 vs Celeron Dual-Core SU2300

Athlon 64 TF-20 vs Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 TF-20

1 / 1

1,245

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron Dual-Core SU2300

2 / 2

1,250

+0.4%

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 TF-20 vs Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 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 TF-20 vs Celeron Dual-Core SU2300: 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 TF-20

2009

Why buy it

✅Costs $84 less on MSRP ($50 MSRP vs $134 MSRP).
✅Delivers 166.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 24.9 vs 9.3 PassMark/$ ($50 MSRP vs $134 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,245 vs 1,250).
❌51100% higher power demand at 512W vs 1W.

Celeron Dual-Core SU2300

2009

Why buy it

✅+0.4% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 1W instead of 512W, a 511W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (6 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 9.3 vs 24.9 PassMark/$ ($134 MSRP vs $50 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 better than Athlon 64 TF-20?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Athlon 64 TF-20 is ahead with a 0.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 pulls ahead with 0.4% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.4% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 comes in 168.0% more expensive on MSRP at $134 MSRP versus $50 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.4% better PassMark. Athlon 64 TF-20 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2009 platform. Even with 166.9% better value on paper (24.9 vs 9.3 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on S1g1.

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

Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 1/1. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Athlon 64 TF-20 vs Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 Technical Specifications

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

Athlon 64 TF-20

The Athlon 64 TF-20 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Sherman (2009) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.6 GHz. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: S1g1. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,245 points. Launch price was $149.

Celeron Dual-Core SU2300

The Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2009 (16 years ago). It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.2 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: BGA956. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,250 points. Launch price was $134.

⚡

Processing Power

The Athlon 64 TF-20 packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 1.6 GHz on the Athlon 64 TF-20 versus 1.2 GHz on the Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 — a 28.6% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 TF-20. The Athlon 64 TF-20 uses the Sherman (2009) architecture (65 nm), while the Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 uses Penryn (2008−2011) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 TF-20 scores 1,245 against the Celeron Dual-Core SU2300's 1,250 — a 0.4% lead for the Celeron Dual-Core SU2300.

Feature	Athlon 64 TF-20	Celeron Dual-Core SU2300
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	2 / 2+100%
Boost Clock	1.6 GHz+33%	1.2 GHz
L2 Cache	512 kB	1 MB+100%
Process	65 nm	45 nm-31%
Architecture	Sherman (2009)	Penryn (2008−2011)
PassMark	1,245	1,250
Geekbench 6 Single	—	150
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	280

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 64 TF-20 uses the S1g1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 uses BGA956 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-667 on the Athlon 64 TF-20 versus DDR3-800 on the Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 — the Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 supports 19.9% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 4 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Chipset compatibility: Socket S1 (Athlon 64 TF-20) and GS45 (Celeron Dual-Core SU2300).

Feature	Athlon 64 TF-20	Celeron Dual-Core SU2300
Socket	S1g1	BGA956
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0+82%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-667	DDR3-800+20%
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	4 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	—	6

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: false (Athlon 64 TF-20) vs VT-x (Celeron Dual-Core SU2300). Primary use case: Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 targets Legacy Mobile. Direct competitor: Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 rivals Pentium SU4100.

Feature	Athlon 64 TF-20	Celeron Dual-Core SU2300
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	false	VT-x
Target Use	—	Legacy Mobile

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Athlon 64 TF-20 was priced at $50, while the Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 came in at $134. On launch pricing ($50 vs $134), Athlon 64 TF-20 was $84 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 TF-20 delivers 24.9 pts/$ vs 9.3 pts/$ for the Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 — making the Athlon 64 TF-20 the 91% better value option.

Feature	Athlon 64 TF-20	Celeron Dual-Core SU2300
MSRP	$50-63%	$134
Performance per Dollar	24.9+168%	9.3
Release Date	2009	2009

Search Athlon 64 TF-20 on Amazon

Search Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 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.