Athlon 64 X2 4000+ vs Celeron 3755U
Athlon 64 X2 4000+
Celeron 3755U
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 4000+ is positioned at rank 1082 and the Celeron 3755U is on rank 348, so the Celeron 3755U 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 4000+
Performance Per Dollar Celeron 3755U
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon 64 X2 4000+ | Celeron 3755U |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($10) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Windsor (2006−2007) / 90 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Broadwell-U (2015) / 14 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon 64 X2 4000+ | Celeron 3755U |
|---|---|---|
| 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 4000+ and Celeron 3755U
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 40% 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 — 120% 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+50% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 4 GB | 16 GB+300% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| 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.
| Feature | Athlon 64 X2 4000+ | Celeron 3755U |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | None | HD Graphics (Broadwell) |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | AMD-V | VT-x, VT-d |
| Target Use | Legacy Desktop | Budget |
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 4000+ and Celeron 3755U
