Athlon II Neo K325 vs Celeron 1005M
Athlon II Neo K325
Celeron 1005M
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 II Neo K325 is positioned at rank 912 and the Celeron 1005M is on rank 1018, so the Athlon II Neo K325 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Athlon II Neo K325
Performance Per Dollar Celeron 1005M
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon II Neo K325 | Celeron 1005M |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($25) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($86) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Geneva (2010) / 45 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) / 22 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon II Neo K325 | Celeron 1005M |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+242%) | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($25) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($86) |
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 II Neo K325 and Celeron 1005M
Athlon II Neo K325
The Athlon II Neo K325 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Geneva (2010) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.3 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: 1,111 points. Launch price was $149.
Celeron 1005M
The Celeron 1005M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 July 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.9 GHz, with boost up to 1.9 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,116 points. Launch price was $86.
Processing Power
Both the Athlon II Neo K325 and Celeron 1005M share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.3 GHz on the Athlon II Neo K325 versus 1.9 GHz on the Celeron 1005M — a 37.5% clock advantage for the Celeron 1005M. The Athlon II Neo K325 uses the Geneva (2010) architecture (45 nm), while the Celeron 1005M uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon II Neo K325 scores 1,111 against the Celeron 1005M's 1,116 — a 0.4% lead for the Celeron 1005M. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 736 vs 350, a 71.1% lead for the Athlon II Neo K325 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 1,235 vs 607 (68.2% advantage for the Athlon II Neo K325).
| Feature | Athlon II Neo K325 | Celeron 1005M |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 1.3 GHz | 1.9 GHz+46% |
| Base Clock | — | 1.9 GHz |
| L3 Cache | — | 2 MB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 512 kB |
| Process | 45 nm | 22 nm-51% |
| Architecture | Geneva (2010) | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) |
| PassMark | 1,111 | 1,116 |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | — | 656 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 736+110% | 350 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 1,235+103% | 607 |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon II Neo K325 uses the S1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 1005M uses PGA988 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3-800 memory speed. The Celeron 1005M supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 120% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Athlon II Neo K325) vs 16 (Celeron 1005M) — the Celeron 1005M offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: M880G (Athlon II Neo K325) and HM76,HM77 (Celeron 1005M).
| Feature | Athlon II Neo K325 | Celeron 1005M |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | S1 | PGA988 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0 | PCIe 3.0+50% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-800 | DDR3-1600 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 8 GB | 32 GB+300% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 16 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (Athlon II Neo K325) vs VT-x, VT-d (Celeron 1005M). The Celeron 1005M includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)), while the Athlon II Neo K325 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Athlon II Neo K325 targets Low Power.
| Feature | Athlon II Neo K325 | Celeron 1005M |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | AMD-V | VT-x, VT-d |
| Target Use | Low Power | — |
Value Analysis
The Athlon II Neo K325 launched at $60 MSRP, while the Celeron 1005M debuted at $86.
| Feature | Athlon II Neo K325 | Celeron 1005M |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $60-30% | $86 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $25 | — |
| Release Date | 2010 | 2013 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Athlon II Neo K325 and Celeron 1005M
