Athlon 64 X2 4000+ vs Celeron N3150
Athlon 64 X2 4000+
Celeron N3150
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 N3150 is on rank 208, so the Celeron N3150 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 N3150
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon 64 X2 4000+ | Celeron N3150 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior 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 (Braswell (2015−2016) / 14 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon 64 X2 4000+ | Celeron N3150 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 N3150
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 | 2 MB+300% |
| 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 199.5% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron N3150 supports up to 8 of RAM compared to 4 GB — 66.7% 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+79900% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 4 GB+52428700% | 8 |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| 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.
| Feature | Athlon 64 X2 4000+ | Celeron N3150 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | None | Intel HD Graphics (Braswell) |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | AMD-V | true |
| Target Use | Legacy Desktop | — |
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 N3150
