Athlon 64 X2 TK-42 vs Celeron E1600
Athlon 64 X2 TK-42
Celeron E1600
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 TK-42 is positioned at rank 1019 and the Celeron E1600 is on rank 896, so the Celeron E1600 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 TK-42
Performance Per Dollar Celeron E1600
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon 64 X2 TK-42 | Celeron E1600 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | Equivalent pricing | Equivalent pricing |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Tyler (2007−2009) / 65 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Allendale (2006−2009) / 65 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon 64 X2 TK-42 | Celeron E1600 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+5%) |
| Upfront Cost | Equivalent pricing | Equivalent pricing |
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 TK-42 and Celeron E1600
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. Both support up to DDR2-667 memory speed. 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 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| 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
The Athlon 64 X2 TK-42 launched at $60 MSRP, while the Celeron E1600 debuted at $53. At current prices ($10 vs $10), the Celeron E1600 is $0 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 X2 TK-42 delivers 77.5 pts/$ vs 81.5 pts/$ for the Celeron E1600 — making the Celeron E1600 the 5% better value option.
| Feature | Athlon 64 X2 TK-42 | Celeron E1600 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $60 | $53-12% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $10 | $10 |
| Performance per Dollar | 77.5 | 81.5+5% |
| Release Date | 2009 | 2009 |
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 TK-42 and Celeron E1600
