Athlon 64 X2 4000+ vs Celeron Dual-Core T3100

Athlon 64 X2 4000+ vs Celeron Dual-Core T3100 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 X2 4000+

2 / 2

1,175

+0.1%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron Dual-Core T3100

2 / 2

1,174

0.0%

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 Dual-Core T3100 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 Dual-Core T3100: 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 Dual-Core T3100.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $328 MSRP, while Celeron Dual-Core T3100 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌8800% higher power demand at 89W vs 1W.

Celeron Dual-Core T3100

2009

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 89W, a 88W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,174 vs 1,175).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Athlon 64 X2 4000+.

Quick Answers

So, is Athlon 64 X2 4000+ better than Celeron Dual-Core T3100?

Yes. Athlon 64 X2 4000+ is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.1% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Athlon 64 X2 4000+ is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.1% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Athlon 64 X2 4000+ is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Athlon 64 X2 4000+ is the better buy right now. Athlon 64 X2 4000+ comes in at an unclear MSRP at $328 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (3.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Celeron Dual-Core T3100 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2009 vs 2006). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Athlon 64 X2 4000+ vs Celeron Dual-Core T3100 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 Dual-Core T3100

The Celeron Dual-Core T3100 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.9 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,174 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ and Celeron Dual-Core T3100 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ versus 1.9 GHz on the Celeron Dual-Core T3100 — a 5.1% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 X2 4000+. The Athlon 64 X2 4000+ uses the Windsor (2006−2007) architecture (90 nm), while the Celeron Dual-Core T3100 uses Penryn (2008−2011) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ scores 1,175 against the Celeron Dual-Core T3100's 1,174 — a 0.1% lead for the Athlon 64 X2 4000+.

Feature	Athlon 64 X2 4000+	Celeron Dual-Core T3100
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2 GHz+5%	1.9 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	—
L2 Cache	512K+51100%	1 MB
Process	90 nm	45 nm-50%
Architecture	Windsor (2006−2007)	Penryn (2008−2011)
PassMark	1,175	1,174
Geekbench 6 Single	195	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	380	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 64 X2 4000+ uses the AM2 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron Dual-Core T3100 uses PGA478 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR2-800 memory speed. The Celeron Dual-Core T3100 supports up to 8 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: nForce 500,AMD 690G (Athlon 64 X2 4000+) and GL40,GM45,GS45 (Celeron Dual-Core T3100).

Feature	Athlon 64 X2 4000+	Celeron Dual-Core T3100
Socket	AM2	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-800	DDR3-800
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	8 GB+100%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (Athlon 64 X2 4000+) vs No (Celeron Dual-Core T3100). Primary use case: Athlon 64 X2 4000+ targets Legacy Desktop, Celeron Dual-Core T3100 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron Dual-Core T3100 rivals Pentium T4200.