Athlon II Neo K125 vs Celeron N4000

Athlon II Neo K125 vs Celeron N4000 Performance Spectrum

Athlon II Neo K125

1 / 1

1,491

+1.3%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron N4000

2 / 2

1,472

0.0%

Celeron J1800

Pentium Dual-Core E2200

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 II Neo K125 vs Celeron N4000 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 II Neo K125 vs Celeron N4000: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Athlon II Neo K125

2010

Why buy it

✅+1.3% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $7 less on MSRP ($100 MSRP vs $107 MSRP).
✅Delivers 8.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 14.9 vs 13.8 PassMark/$ ($100 MSRP vs $107 MSRP).
✅Draws 1W instead of 6W, a 5W reduction.

Trade-offs

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

Celeron N4000

2017

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,472 vs 1,491).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 13.8 vs 14.9 PassMark/$ ($107 MSRP vs $100 MSRP).
❌500% higher power demand at 6W vs 1W.

Quick Answers

So, is Athlon II Neo K125 better than Celeron N4000?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron N4000 is ahead with a 1.2% average FPS lead across 46 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Athlon II Neo K125 pulls ahead with 1.3% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Athlon II Neo K125 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.3% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Athlon II Neo K125 is the better buy right now. Athlon II Neo K125 comes in $7 cheaper on MSRP at $100 MSRP versus $107 MSRP, and it still gives you 1.3% better PassMark. The compromise is that Celeron N4000 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 1.2% average FPS lead across 46 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 8.4% better value on MSRP (14.9 vs 13.8 PassMark/$), 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 N4000 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2017 vs 2010). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Athlon II Neo K125 vs Celeron N4000 Technical Specifications

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

Athlon II Neo K125

The Athlon II Neo K125 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Geneva (2010) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.7 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: S1. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,491 points. Launch price was $149.

Celeron N4000

The Celeron N4000 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 11 December 2017 (7 years ago). It is based on the Goldmont Plus (2017) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.1 GHz, with boost up to 2.6 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB. L2 cache: 4 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1090. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 1,472 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

The Athlon II Neo K125 packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Celeron N4000 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Celeron N4000 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 1.7 GHz on the Athlon II Neo K125 versus 2.6 GHz on the Celeron N4000 — a 41.9% clock advantage for the Celeron N4000. The Athlon II Neo K125 uses the Geneva (2010) architecture (45 nm), while the Celeron N4000 uses Goldmont Plus (2017) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon II Neo K125 scores 1,491 against the Celeron N4000's 1,472 — a 1.3% lead for the Athlon II Neo K125.

Feature	Athlon II Neo K125	Celeron N4000
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	2 / 2+100%
Boost Clock	1.7 GHz	2.6 GHz+53%
Base Clock	—	1.1 GHz
L3 Cache	—	4 MB
L2 Cache	1 MB	4 MB+300%
Process	45 nm	14 nm-69%
Architecture	Geneva (2010)	Goldmont Plus (2017)
PassMark	1,491+1%	1,472

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon II Neo K125 uses the S1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron N4000 uses FCBGA1090 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Athlon II Neo K125	Celeron N4000
Socket	S1	FCBGA1090
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-800	—
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	0	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Athlon II Neo K125 was priced at $100, while the Celeron N4000 came in at $107. On launch pricing ($100 vs $107), Athlon II Neo K125 was $7 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon II Neo K125 delivers 14.9 pts/$ vs 13.8 pts/$ for the Celeron N4000 — making the Athlon II Neo K125 the 8% better value option.

Feature	Athlon II Neo K125	Celeron N4000
MSRP	$100-7%	$107
Performance per Dollar	14.9+8%	13.8
Release Date	2010	2017

Search Athlon II Neo K125 on Amazon

Search Celeron N4000 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.