Athlon 64 X2 5400+ vs Celeron G1620

CPU

GPU

Athlon 64 X2 5400+

2 Cores2 Thrd89 WWMax: 2.8 GHz2006

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Celeron G1620

2 Cores2 Thrd55 WWMax: 2.7 GHz2012

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Athlon 64 X2 5400+ vs Celeron G1620 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 X2 5400+

2 / 2

1,585

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron G1620

2 / 2

1,586

+0.1%

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 5400+ vs Celeron G1620 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 5400+ vs Celeron G1620: 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 5400+

2006

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,585 vs 1,586).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 3.3 vs 30.5 PassMark/$ ($485 MSRP vs $52 MSRP).
❌61.8% higher power demand at 89W vs 55W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron G1620 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Celeron G1620.

Celeron G1620

2012

Why buy it

✅+0.1% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $433 less on MSRP ($52 MSRP vs $485 MSRP).
✅Delivers 833.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 30.5 vs 3.3 PassMark/$ ($52 MSRP vs $485 MSRP).
✅Draws 55W instead of 89W, a 34W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron G1620 better than Athlon 64 X2 5400+?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Athlon 64 X2 5400+ is ahead with a 1.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron G1620 pulls ahead with 0.1% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron G1620 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?

Celeron G1620 is the better buy right now. Celeron G1620 comes in $433 cheaper on MSRP at $52 MSRP versus $485 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.1% better PassMark. The compromise is that Athlon 64 X2 5400+ is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 1.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 833.3% better value on MSRP (30.5 vs 3.3 PassMark/$), 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 G1620 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2012 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 5400+ vs Celeron G1620 Technical Specifications

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

Athlon 64 X2 5400+

The Athlon 64 X2 5400+ 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: 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: AM2. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 1,585 points. Launch price was $149.

Celeron G1620

The Celeron G1620 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 December 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.7 GHz, with boost up to 2.7 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1155. Thermal design power (TDP): 55 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,586 points. Launch price was $208.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Athlon 64 X2 5400+ and Celeron G1620 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.8 GHz on the Athlon 64 X2 5400+ versus 2.7 GHz on the Celeron G1620 — a 3.6% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 X2 5400+. The Athlon 64 X2 5400+ uses the Windsor (2006−2007) architecture (90 nm), while the Celeron G1620 uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 X2 5400+ scores 1,585 against the Celeron G1620's 1,586 — a 0.1% lead for the Celeron G1620. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon 64 X2 5400+ vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron G1620.

Feature	Athlon 64 X2 5400+	Celeron G1620
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.8 GHz+4%	2.7 GHz
Base Clock	—	2.7 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB (total)
L2 Cache	512 kB+100%	256 kB (per core)
Process	90 nm	22 nm-76%
Architecture	Windsor (2006−2007)	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
PassMark	1,585	1,586
Geekbench 6 Single	—	441
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	760

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 64 X2 5400+ uses the AM2 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron G1620 uses LGA1155 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-800 on the Athlon 64 X2 5400+ versus DDR3-1333 on the Celeron G1620 — the Celeron G1620 supports 66.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron G1620 supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 16 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Athlon 64 X2 5400+) vs 16 (Celeron G1620) — the Celeron G1620 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD AM2 (Athlon 64 X2 5400+) and H77,B75,Z77,H61,P67,Z68 (Celeron G1620).

Feature	Athlon 64 X2 5400+	Celeron G1620
Socket	AM2	LGA1155
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 3.0+173%
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-800	DDR3-1333+67%
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	32 GB+100%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	0	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Athlon 64 X2 5400+) / VT-x, EPT (Celeron G1620). The Celeron G1620 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge GT1)), while the Athlon 64 X2 5400+ requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron G1620 targets Desktop. Direct competitor: Celeron G1620 rivals Pentium G2030.

Feature	Athlon 64 X2 5400+	Celeron G1620
Integrated GPU	No	Yes
IGPU Model	—	Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge GT1)
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	No
Virtualization	—	VT-x, EPT
Target Use	—	Desktop

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Athlon 64 X2 5400+ was priced at $485, while the Celeron G1620 came in at $52. On launch pricing ($485 vs $52), Celeron G1620 was $433 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 X2 5400+ delivers 3.3 pts/$ vs 30.5 pts/$ for the Celeron G1620 — making the Celeron G1620 the 161.3% better value option.

Feature	Athlon 64 X2 5400+	Celeron G1620
MSRP	$485	$52-89%
Performance per Dollar	3.3	30.5+824%
Release Date	2006	2012

Search Athlon 64 X2 5400+ on Amazon

Search Celeron G1620 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.