Athlon 64 X2 4000+ vs Celeron 3755U

Athlon 64 X2 4000+ vs Celeron 3755U Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 X2 4000+

2 / 2

1,175

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron 3755U

2 / 2

1,182

+0.6%

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 X2 4000+ vs Celeron 3755U 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 X2 4000+ vs Celeron 3755U: 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 X2 4000+

2006

Why buy it

✅Includes a boxed cooler (Stock Cooler), unlike Celeron 3755U.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (380 vs 625).
❌Launch MSRP is still $328 MSRP, while Celeron 3755U mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌493.3% higher power demand at 89W vs 15W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 3755U can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Celeron 3755U

2015

Why buy it

✅+64.5% higher Geekbench multi-core.
✅Draws 15W instead of 89W, a 74W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (12 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Broadwell), while Athlon 64 X2 4000+ needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Athlon 64 X2 4000+.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 3755U better than Athlon 64 X2 4000+?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Athlon 64 X2 4000+ is ahead with a 1.4% average FPS lead across 47 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 3755U pulls ahead with 64.5% better Geekbench multi-core.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 3755U is the stronger fit. You are getting 64.5% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron 3755U is still the much better call for a fresh build. Celeron 3755U comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $328 MSRP, and it still gives you 64.5% better Geekbench multi-core. Athlon 64 X2 4000+ only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2006 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (3.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on AM2.

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

Celeron 3755U makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 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 X2 4000+ vs Celeron 3755U Technical Specifications

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

Athlon 64 X2 4000+

The Athlon 64 X2 4000+ 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 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K. Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: AM2. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 1,175 points. Launch price was $149.

Celeron 3755U

The Celeron 3755U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 March 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell-U (2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.7 GHz, with boost up to 1.7 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1168. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,182 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ and Celeron 3755U share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ versus 1.7 GHz on the Celeron 3755U — a 16.2% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 X2 4000+. The Athlon 64 X2 4000+ uses the Windsor (2006−2007) architecture (90 nm), while the Celeron 3755U uses Broadwell-U (2015) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ scores 1,175 against the Celeron 3755U's 1,182 — a 0.6% lead for the Celeron 3755U. Multi-core Geekbench: 380 vs 625 (48.8% advantage for the Celeron 3755U). L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 3755U.

Feature	Athlon 64 X2 4000+	Celeron 3755U
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2 GHz+18%	1.7 GHz
Base Clock	—	1.7 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB (total)
L2 Cache	512K+100%	256K (per core)
Process	90 nm	14 nm-84%
Architecture	Windsor (2006−2007)	Broadwell-U (2015)
PassMark	1,175	1,182
Geekbench 6 Single	195	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	380	625+64%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 64 X2 4000+ uses the AM2 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron 3755U uses FCBGA1168 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-800 on the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ versus DDR3L-1600 on the Celeron 3755U — the Celeron 3755U supports 100% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 3755U supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Athlon 64 X2 4000+) vs 12 (Celeron 3755U) — the Celeron 3755U offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: nForce 500,AMD 690G (Athlon 64 X2 4000+) and Wildcat Point-LP (Celeron 3755U).

Feature	Athlon 64 X2 4000+	Celeron 3755U
Socket	AM2	FCBGA1168
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 3.0+173%
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-800	DDR3L-1600+100%
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	16 GB+300%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	12

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (Athlon 64 X2 4000+) vs VT-x, VT-d (Celeron 3755U). The Celeron 3755U includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Broadwell)), while the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Athlon 64 X2 4000+ targets Legacy Desktop, Celeron 3755U targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 3755U rivals Pentium 3825U.