Athlon 64 X2 3800+ vs Celeron E3200
Athlon 64 X2 3800+
Celeron E3200
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 3800+ is positioned at rank 1094 and the Celeron E3200 is on rank 683, so the Celeron E3200 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 3800+
Performance Per Dollar Celeron E3200
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon 64 X2 3800+ | Celeron E3200 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($20) | ✅ More affordable ($5) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Manchester (2005−2006) / 90 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Wolfdale (2008−2010) / 45 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon 64 X2 3800+ | Celeron E3200 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+298%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($20) | ✅ More affordable ($5) |
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 3800+ and Celeron E3200
Athlon 64 X2 3800+
The Athlon 64 X2 3800+ 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: 512 kB. Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: 939. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 1,095 points. Launch price was $149.
Celeron E3200
The Celeron E3200 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 30 August 2009 (16 years ago). It is based on the Wolfdale (2008−2010) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB (total). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,090 points. Launch price was $52.
Processing Power
Both the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ and Celeron E3200 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ versus 2.4 GHz on the Celeron E3200 — a 18.2% clock advantage for the Celeron E3200. The Athlon 64 X2 3800+ uses the Manchester (2005−2006) architecture (90 nm), while the Celeron E3200 uses Wolfdale (2008−2010) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ scores 1,095 against the Celeron E3200's 1,090 — a 0.5% lead for the Athlon 64 X2 3800+. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.
| Feature | Athlon 64 X2 3800+ | Celeron E3200 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 2 GHz | 2.4 GHz+20% |
| Base Clock | — | 2.4 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 512 kB | 1 MB (total)+100% |
| Process | 90 nm | 45 nm-50% |
| Architecture | Manchester (2005−2006) | Wolfdale (2008−2010) |
| PassMark | 1,095 | 1,090 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 340 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 610 |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon 64 X2 3800+ uses the 939 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron E3200 uses LGA775 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR2-800 memory speed. Both support up to 16 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: AMD AM2 (Athlon 64 X2 3800+) and G31,G41,P45 (Celeron E3200).
| Feature | Athlon 64 X2 3800+ | Celeron E3200 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | 939 | LGA775 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 1.1 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR2-800 | DDR2-800 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 16 GB | 16 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: not specified (Athlon 64 X2 3800+) / VT-x (Celeron E3200). Primary use case: Celeron E3200 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron E3200 rivals Pentium E5200.
| Feature | Athlon 64 X2 3800+ | Celeron E3200 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | — | No |
| AVX-512 | — | No |
| Virtualization | — | VT-x |
| Target Use | — | Budget |
Value Analysis
The Athlon 64 X2 3800+ launched at $354 MSRP, while the Celeron E3200 debuted at $43. At current prices ($20 vs $5), the Celeron E3200 is $15 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ delivers 54.8 pts/$ vs 218.0 pts/$ for the Celeron E3200 — making the Celeron E3200 the 119.7% better value option.
| Feature | Athlon 64 X2 3800+ | Celeron E3200 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $354 | $43-88% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $20 | $5-75% |
| Performance per Dollar | 54.8 | 218.0+298% |
| Release Date | 2005 | 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 X2 3800+ and Celeron E3200
