Athlon II Neo K345 vs Celeron N3160

Athlon II Neo K345 vs Celeron N3160 Performance Spectrum

Athlon II Neo K345

2 / 2

1,191

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron N3160

4 / 4

1,195

+0.3%

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 K345 vs Celeron N3160 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 K345 vs Celeron N3160: 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 K345

2010

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 4W, a 3W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,191 vs 1,195).
❌Launch MSRP is still $50 MSRP, while Celeron N3160 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron N3160 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Celeron N3160

2016

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics 400, while Athlon II Neo K345 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌300% higher power demand at 4W vs 1W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N3160 better than Athlon II Neo K345?

Yes. Celeron N3160 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.3% 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 N3160 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.1% 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, Celeron N3160 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Celeron N3160 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Celeron N3160 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $50 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Athlon II Neo K345 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2010 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (23.8 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on S1.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Celeron N3160 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2016 vs 2010) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Athlon II Neo K345 vs Celeron N3160 Technical Specifications

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

Athlon II Neo K345

The Athlon II Neo K345 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Champlain (2010−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.4 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: 1,191 points. Launch price was $149.

Celeron N3160

The Celeron N3160 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 15 January 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Braswell (2015−2016) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.24 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,195 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

The Athlon II Neo K345 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Celeron N3160 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Celeron N3160 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1.4 GHz on the Athlon II Neo K345 versus 2.24 GHz on the Celeron N3160 — a 46.2% clock advantage for the Celeron N3160. The Athlon II Neo K345 uses the Champlain (2010−2011) architecture (45 nm), while the Celeron N3160 uses Braswell (2015−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon II Neo K345 scores 1,191 against the Celeron N3160's 1,195 — a 0.3% lead for the Celeron N3160.

Feature	Athlon II Neo K345	Celeron N3160
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	1.4 GHz	2.24 GHz+60%
Base Clock	—	1.6 GHz
L3 Cache	—	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB	2 MB+100%
Process	45 nm	14 nm-69%
Architecture	Champlain (2010−2011)	Braswell (2015−2016)
PassMark	1,191	1,195

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon II Neo K345 uses the S1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron N3160 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1066 on the Athlon II Neo K345 versus 1600 on the Celeron N3160 — the Celeron N3160 supports 50.1% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron N3160 supports up to 8 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Athlon II Neo K345) vs 4 (Celeron N3160) — the Celeron N3160 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD ASB2 (Athlon II Neo K345) and FCBGA1170 (Celeron N3160).

Feature	Athlon II Neo K345	Celeron N3160
Socket	S1	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1066	1600+50%
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	8 GB+100%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Athlon II Neo K345) / true (Celeron N3160). The Celeron N3160 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics 400), while the Athlon II Neo K345 requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Celeron N3160 rivals AMD E2-9010.