CPU
GPU
Athlon 64 X2 3600+
Celeron N2920
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 X2 3600+ is positioned at rank 1053 and the Celeron N2920 is on rank 278, so the Celeron N2920 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 X2 3600+
Performance Per Dollar Celeron N2920
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon 64 X2 3600+ | Celeron N2920 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | Balanced gaming performance | Balanced gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($10) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Manchester (2005−2006) / 90 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) / 22 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon 64 X2 3600+ | Celeron N2920 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($10) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
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.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Athlon 64 X2 3600+ and Celeron N2920
Athlon 64 X2 3600+
The Athlon 64 X2 3600+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Manchester (2005−2006) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: 939. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Memory support: DDR1. Passmark benchmark score: 1,020 points. Launch price was $149.
Celeron N2920
The Celeron N2920 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 December 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.86 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 7.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,030 points. Launch price was $107.
Processing Power
The Athlon 64 X2 3600+ packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Celeron N2920 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Celeron N2920 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Athlon 64 X2 3600+ versus 2 GHz on the Celeron N2920 — identical boost frequencies. The Athlon 64 X2 3600+ uses the Manchester (2005−2006) architecture (90 nm), while the Celeron N2920 uses Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 X2 3600+ scores 1,020 against the Celeron N2920's 1,030 — a 1% lead for the Celeron N2920. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.
| Feature | Athlon 64 X2 3600+ | Celeron N2920 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 4 / 4+100% |
| Boost Clock | 2 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Base Clock | — | 1.86 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 256 kB (per core) | 512K (per core)+100% |
| Process | 90 nm | 22 nm-76% |
| Architecture | Manchester (2005−2006) | Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) |
| PassMark | 1,020 | 1,030 |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon 64 X2 3600+ uses the 939 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron N2920 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-800 on the Athlon 64 X2 3600+ versus 1066 on the Celeron N2920 — the Celeron N2920 supports 199.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Athlon 64 X2 3600+ supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Athlon 64 X2 3600+) vs 4 (Celeron N2920) — the Celeron N2920 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD AM2 (Athlon 64 X2 3600+) and FCBGA1170 (Celeron N2920).
| Feature | Athlon 64 X2 3600+ | Celeron N2920 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | 939 | FCBGA1170 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 2.0+82% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR2-800 | 1066+53200% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 16 GB+209715100% | 8 |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 4 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: not specified (Athlon 64 X2 3600+) / true (Celeron N2920). The Celeron N2920 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)), while the Athlon 64 X2 3600+ requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Celeron N2920 rivals AMD A4-6210.
| Feature | Athlon 64 X2 3600+ | Celeron N2920 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) |
| Unlocked | — | No |
| AVX-512 | — | No |
| Virtualization | — | true |
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 X2 3600+ and Celeron N2920
