Athlon 64 X2 4000+ vs Celeron N3150

Athlon 64 X2 4000+ vs Celeron N3150 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 X2 4000+

2 / 2

1,175

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron N3150

4 / 4

1,177

+0.2%

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 N3150 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 N3150: 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 N3150.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,175 vs 1,177).
❌Launch MSRP is still $328 MSRP, while Celeron N3150 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌1383.3% higher power demand at 89W vs 6W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron N3150 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Celeron N3150

2015

Why buy it

✅Draws 6W instead of 89W, a 83W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Braswell), 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 N3150 better than Athlon 64 X2 4000+?

Yes. Celeron N3150 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.2% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron N3150 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.3% 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, Celeron N3150 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Celeron N3150 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Celeron N3150 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $328 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Athlon 64 X2 4000+ only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2006 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (3.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 N3150 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 4 cores / 4 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 N3150 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 N3150

The Celeron N3150 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 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.08 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,177 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

The Athlon 64 X2 4000+ packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Celeron N3150 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Celeron N3150 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ versus 2.08 GHz on the Celeron N3150 — a 3.9% clock advantage for the Celeron N3150. The Athlon 64 X2 4000+ uses the Windsor (2006−2007) architecture (90 nm), while the Celeron N3150 uses Braswell (2015−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ scores 1,175 against the Celeron N3150's 1,177 — a 0.2% lead for the Celeron N3150. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Athlon 64 X2 4000+	Celeron N3150
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	2 GHz	2.08 GHz+4%
Base Clock	—	1.6 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512K+25500%	2 MB
Process	90 nm	14 nm-84%
Architecture	Windsor (2006−2007)	Braswell (2015−2016)
PassMark	1,175	1,177
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 N3150 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-800 on the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ versus 1600 on the Celeron N3150 — the Celeron N3150 supports 100% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron N3150 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. PCIe lanes: 0 (Athlon 64 X2 4000+) vs 4 (Celeron N3150) — the Celeron N3150 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: nForce 500,AMD 690G (Athlon 64 X2 4000+) and FCBGA1170 (Celeron N3150).

Feature	Athlon 64 X2 4000+	Celeron N3150
Socket	AM2	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 3.0+173%
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-800	1600+100%
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	8 GB+100%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (Athlon 64 X2 4000+) vs true (Celeron N3150). The Celeron N3150 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Braswell)), while the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Athlon 64 X2 4000+ targets Legacy Desktop. Direct competitor: Celeron N3150 rivals AMD E2-7110.