Athlon 64 X2 TK-42 vs Celeron E1600

Athlon 64 X2 TK-42 vs Celeron E1600 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 X2 TK-42

2 / 2

775

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron E1600

2 / 2

815

+5.2%

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 TK-42 vs Celeron E1600 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 TK-42 vs Celeron E1600: 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 TK-42

2009

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 65W, a 64W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron E1600 across 39 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (775 vs 815).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 12.9 vs 15.4 PassMark/$ ($60 MSRP vs $53 MSRP).

Celeron E1600

2009

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +5.3% higher average FPS across 39 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $7 less on MSRP ($53 MSRP vs $60 MSRP).
✅Delivers 19.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 15.4 vs 12.9 PassMark/$ ($53 MSRP vs $60 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌6400% higher power demand at 65W vs 1W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron E1600 better than Athlon 64 X2 TK-42?

Yes. Celeron E1600 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 5.3% average FPS lead across 39 shared CPU game tests in our data, 5.2% 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 E1600 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 5.3% more average FPS across 39 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron E1600 is the stronger fit. You are getting 5.2% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron E1600 is the better buy right now. Celeron E1600 comes in $7 cheaper on MSRP at $53 MSRP versus $60 MSRP, and it still gives you a 5.3% average FPS lead across 39 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 19.1% better value on MSRP (15.4 vs 12.9 PassMark/$), 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 E1600 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 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 TK-42 vs Celeron E1600 Technical Specifications

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

Athlon 64 X2 TK-42

The Athlon 64 X2 TK-42 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Tyler (2007−2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.6 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: S1. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 775 points. Launch price was $149.

Celeron E1600

The Celeron E1600 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Allendale (2006−2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (total). Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 815 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Athlon 64 X2 TK-42 and Celeron E1600 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.6 GHz on the Athlon 64 X2 TK-42 versus 2.4 GHz on the Celeron E1600 — a 40% clock advantage for the Celeron E1600. The Athlon 64 X2 TK-42 uses the Tyler (2007−2009) architecture (65 nm), while the Celeron E1600 uses Allendale (2006−2009) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 X2 TK-42 scores 775 against the Celeron E1600's 815 — a 5% lead for the Celeron E1600.

Feature	Athlon 64 X2 TK-42	Celeron E1600
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.6 GHz	2.4 GHz+50%
Base Clock	—	2.4 GHz
L3 Cache	—	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB+100%	512 kB (total)
Process	65 nm	65 nm
Architecture	Tyler (2007−2009)	Allendale (2006−2009)
PassMark	775	815+5%
Geekbench 6 Single	—	310
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	560

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 64 X2 TK-42 uses the S1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron E1600 uses LGA775 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-667 on the Athlon 64 X2 TK-42 versus DDR2-800 on the Celeron E1600 — the Celeron E1600 supports 19.9% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 8 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: AMD S1 (Athlon 64 X2 TK-42) and G31,P35,G41 (Celeron E1600).

Feature	Athlon 64 X2 TK-42	Celeron E1600
Socket	S1	LGA775
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0+82%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-667	DDR2-800+20%
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Athlon 64 X2 TK-42) / No (Celeron E1600). Primary use case: Celeron E1600 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron E1600 rivals Pentium E2220.

Feature	Athlon 64 X2 TK-42	Celeron E1600
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	No
Virtualization	—	No
Target Use	—	Budget

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Athlon 64 X2 TK-42 was priced at $60, while the Celeron E1600 came in at $53. On launch pricing ($60 vs $53), Celeron E1600 was $7 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 X2 TK-42 delivers 12.9 pts/$ vs 15.4 pts/$ for the Celeron E1600 — making the Celeron E1600 the 17.4% better value option.

Feature	Athlon 64 X2 TK-42	Celeron E1600
MSRP	$60	$53-12%
Performance per Dollar	12.9	15.4+19%
Release Date	2009	2009

Search Athlon 64 X2 TK-42 on Amazon

Search Celeron E1600 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.