Athlon 64 X2 3800+ vs Celeron N3050
Athlon 64 X2 3800+
Celeron N3050
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 N3050 is on rank 744, so the Celeron N3050 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 N3050
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon 64 X2 3800+ | Celeron N3050 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($20) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Manchester (2005−2006) / 90 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Braswell (2015−2016) / 14 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon 64 X2 3800+ | Celeron N3050 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($20) | ✅ 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 3800+ and Celeron N3050
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 N3050
The Celeron N3050 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 April 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Braswell (2015−2016) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.16 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,099 points. Launch price was $107.
Processing Power
Both the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ and Celeron N3050 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ versus 2.16 GHz on the Celeron N3050 — a 7.7% clock advantage for the Celeron N3050. The Athlon 64 X2 3800+ uses the Manchester (2005−2006) architecture (90 nm), while the Celeron N3050 uses Braswell (2015−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ scores 1,095 against the Celeron N3050's 1,099 — a 0.4% lead for the Celeron N3050. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.
| Feature | Athlon 64 X2 3800+ | Celeron N3050 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 2 GHz | 2.16 GHz+8% |
| Base Clock | — | 1.6 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 512 kB | 1 MB+100% |
| Process | 90 nm | 14 nm-84% |
| Architecture | Manchester (2005−2006) | Braswell (2015−2016) |
| PassMark | 1,095 | 1,099 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 221 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 440 |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon 64 X2 3800+ uses the 939 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron N3050 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-800 on the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ versus DDR3L-1600 on the Celeron N3050 — the Celeron N3050 supports 40% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Athlon 64 X2 3800+ 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 X2 3800+) vs 4 (Celeron N3050) — the Celeron N3050 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD AM2 (Athlon 64 X2 3800+) and Braswell SoC (Celeron N3050).
| Feature | Athlon 64 X2 3800+ | Celeron N3050 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | 939 | FCBGA1170 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 3.0+173% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR2-800 | DDR3L-1600+50% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 16 GB+100% | 8 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 4 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: not specified (Athlon 64 X2 3800+) / VT-x / EPT (Celeron N3050). The Celeron N3050 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Braswell)), while the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron N3050 targets Netbook. Direct competitor: Celeron N3050 rivals AMD E2-7110.
| Feature | Athlon 64 X2 3800+ | Celeron N3050 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | Intel HD Graphics (Braswell) |
| Unlocked | — | No |
| AVX-512 | — | No |
| Virtualization | — | VT-x / EPT |
| Target Use | — | Netbook |
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 N3050
