CPU
GPU
Athlon II X2 260
Celeron 3765U
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 X2 260 is positioned at rank 780 and the Celeron 3765U is on rank 445, so the Celeron 3765U 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 X2 260
Performance Per Dollar Celeron 3765U
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon II X2 260 | Celeron 3765U |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($12) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Regor (2009−2013) / 45 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Broadwell (2015−2019) / 14 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon II X2 260 | Celeron 3765U |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($12) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
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.
Counter-Strike 2
League of Legends
Valorant
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Athlon II X2 260 and Celeron 3765U
Athlon II X2 260
The Athlon II X2 260 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 11 May 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Regor (2009−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: AM3. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,248 points. Launch price was $48.
Celeron 3765U
The Celeron 3765U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 June 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell (2015−2019) 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 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1168. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,252 points. Launch price was $107.
Processing Power
Both the Athlon II X2 260 and Celeron 3765U share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.2 GHz on the Athlon II X2 260 versus 1.9 GHz on the Celeron 3765U — a 51% clock advantage for the Athlon II X2 260 (base: 3.2 GHz vs 1.9 GHz). The Athlon II X2 260 uses the Regor (2009−2013) architecture (45 nm), while the Celeron 3765U uses Broadwell (2015−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon II X2 260 scores 1,248 against the Celeron 3765U's 1,252 — a 0.3% lead for the Celeron 3765U. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon II X2 260 vs 2 MB on the Celeron 3765U.
| Feature | Athlon II X2 260 | Celeron 3765U |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 3.2 GHz+68% | 1.9 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3.2 GHz+68% | 1.9 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 2 MB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 512 kB |
| Process | 45 nm | 14 nm-69% |
| Architecture | Regor (2009−2013) | Broadwell (2015−2019) |
| PassMark | 1,248 | 1,252 |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon II X2 260 uses the AM3 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 3765U uses FCBGA1168 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 1333 on the Athlon II X2 260 versus DDR3L-1600 on the Celeron 3765U — the Athlon II X2 260 supports 199.1% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 16 of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Athlon II X2 260) vs 12 (Celeron 3765U) — the Celeron 3765U offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AM2+,AM3 (Athlon II X2 260) and Wildcat Point-LP (Celeron 3765U).
| Feature | Athlon II X2 260 | Celeron 3765U |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | AM3 | FCBGA1168 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0 | PCIe 3.0+50% |
| Max RAM Speed | 1333+44333% | DDR3L-1600 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 16 | 16 GB+104857500% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 12 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: true (Athlon II X2 260) vs VT-x, VT-d (Celeron 3765U). The Celeron 3765U includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Broadwell)), while the Athlon II X2 260 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 3765U targets Budget. Direct competitor: Athlon II X2 260 rivals Pentium E6700; Celeron 3765U rivals Pentium 3825U.
| Feature | Athlon II X2 260 | Celeron 3765U |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | None | HD Graphics (Broadwell) |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | true | VT-x, VT-d |
| Target Use | — | Budget |
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 X2 260 and Celeron 3765U
