Athlon II Neo K325 vs Celeron 1005M

Athlon II Neo K325 vs Celeron 1005M Performance Spectrum

Athlon II Neo K325

2 / 2

1,111

0.0%

Mobile Athlon 64 3700+

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron 1005M

2 / 2

1,116

+0.5%

Pentium D 830

Pentium T2370

Pentium T3400

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 K325 vs Celeron 1005M 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 K325 vs Celeron 1005M: 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 K325

2010

Why buy it

✅+110.3% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
✅Costs $26 less on MSRP ($60 MSRP vs $86 MSRP).
✅Delivers 42.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 18.5 vs 13.0 PassMark/$ ($60 MSRP vs $86 MSRP).
✅Draws 1W instead of 512W, a 511W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 1005M can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Celeron 1005M

2013

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge), while Athlon II Neo K325 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (350 vs 736).
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (607 vs 1,235).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 13.0 vs 18.5 PassMark/$ ($86 MSRP vs $60 MSRP).
❌51100% higher power demand at 512W vs 1W.

Quick Answers

So, is Athlon II Neo K325 better than Celeron 1005M?

Yes. Athlon II Neo K325 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 103.5% better Geekbench multi-core, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Athlon II Neo K325 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.8% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Athlon II Neo K325 is the stronger fit. You are getting 103.5% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Athlon II Neo K325 is the better buy right now. Athlon II Neo K325 comes in $26 cheaper on MSRP at $60 MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 42.7% better value on MSRP (18.5 vs 13.0 PassMark/$), 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 1005M makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2010). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Athlon II Neo K325 vs Celeron 1005M Technical Specifications

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

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. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-800 on the Athlon II Neo K325 versus DDR3-1600 on the Celeron 1005M — the Celeron 1005M supports 100% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 1005M supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 300% 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+100%
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	32 GB+300%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
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

At launch, the Athlon II Neo K325 was priced at $60, while the Celeron 1005M came in at $86. On launch pricing ($60 vs $86), Athlon II Neo K325 was $26 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon II Neo K325 delivers 18.5 pts/$ vs 13.0 pts/$ for the Celeron 1005M — making the Athlon II Neo K325 the 35.2% better value option.

Feature	Athlon II Neo K325	Celeron 1005M
MSRP	$60-30%	$86
Performance per Dollar	18.5+42%	13.0
Release Date	2010	2013

Search Athlon II Neo K325 on Amazon

Search Celeron 1005M 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.