Athlon II X4 645 vs Celeron G4900

CPU

GPU

Athlon II X4 645

4 Cores4 Thrd95 WWMax: 3.1 GHz2010

Buy on Amazon

Celeron G4900

2 Cores2 Thrd54 WWMax: 3.1 GHz2018

Buy on Amazon

Athlon II X4 645 vs Celeron G4900 Performance Spectrum

Athlon II X4 645

4 / 4

2,375

+0.2%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron G4900

2 / 2

2,370

0.0%

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 X4 645 vs Celeron G4900 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 X4 645 vs Celeron G4900: 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 X4 645

2010

Why buy it

✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Celeron G4900.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (399 vs 850).
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (1,374 vs 1,550).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 18.8 vs 56.4 PassMark/$ ($126 MSRP vs $42 MSRP).
❌75.9% higher power demand at 95W vs 54W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron G4900 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Celeron G4900

2018

Why buy it

✅+113% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
✅Costs $84 less on MSRP ($42 MSRP vs $126 MSRP).
✅Delivers 199.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 56.4 vs 18.8 PassMark/$ ($42 MSRP vs $126 MSRP).
✅Draws 54W instead of 95W, a 41W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 610, while Athlon II X4 645 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Athlon II X4 645.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron G4900 better than Athlon II X4 645?

Yes. Celeron G4900 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 12.8% better Geekbench multi-core, 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 G4900 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.8% 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, Celeron G4900 is the stronger fit. You are getting 12.8% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron G4900 is the better buy right now. Celeron G4900 comes in $84 cheaper on MSRP at $42 MSRP versus $126 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 199.4% better value on MSRP (56.4 vs 18.8 PassMark/$), 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 G4900 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2018 vs 2010) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 4/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Athlon II X4 645 vs Celeron G4900 Technical Specifications

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

Athlon II X4 645

The Athlon II X4 645 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 21 September 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Propus (2009−2011) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 3.1 GHz, with boost up to 3.1 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: AM3. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,375 points. Launch price was $80.

Celeron G4900

The Celeron G4900 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 April 2018 (7 years ago). It is based on the Coffee Lake (2017−2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 3.1 GHz, with boost up to 3.1 GHz. L3 cache: 6 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 54 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2400. Passmark benchmark score: 2,370 points. Launch price was $42.

⚡

Processing Power

The Athlon II X4 645 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Celeron G4900 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Athlon II X4 645 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.1 GHz on the Athlon II X4 645 versus 3.1 GHz on the Celeron G4900 — identical boost frequencies (base: 3.1 GHz vs 3.1 GHz). The Athlon II X4 645 uses the Propus (2009−2011) architecture (45 nm), while the Celeron G4900 uses Coffee Lake (2017−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon II X4 645 scores 2,375 against the Celeron G4900's 2,370 — a 0.2% lead for the Athlon II X4 645. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 399 vs 850, a 72.2% lead for the Celeron G4900 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 1,374 vs 1,550 (12% advantage for the Celeron G4900). L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon II X4 645 vs 6 MB (total) on the Celeron G4900.

Feature	Athlon II X4 645	Celeron G4900
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	3.1 GHz	3.1 GHz
Base Clock	3.1 GHz	3.1 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	6 MB (total)
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)+100%	256K (per core)
Process	45 nm	14 nm-69%
Architecture	Propus (2009−2011)	Coffee Lake (2017−2019)
PassMark	2,375	2,370
Cinebench R23 Multi	1,374	—
Geekbench 6 Single	399	850+113%
Geekbench 6 Multi	1,374	1,550+13%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon II X4 645 uses the AM3 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron G4900 uses LGA1151 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the Athlon II X4 645 versus DDR4-2400 on the Celeron G4900 — the Celeron G4900 supports 80% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron G4900 supports up to 64 GB of RAM compared to 16 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 16 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: AMD 700 Series,AMD 800 Series,AMD 900 Series (Athlon II X4 645) and H310,B360,B365,H370,Z370,Z390 (Celeron G4900).

Feature	Athlon II X4 645	Celeron G4900
Socket	AM3	LGA1151
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333	DDR4-2400+80%
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	64 GB+300%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization support: Yes (Athlon II X4 645) vs VT-x (Celeron G4900). The Celeron G4900 includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 610), while the Athlon II X4 645 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Athlon II X4 645 targets Desktop, Celeron G4900 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron G4900 rivals Pentium G5400.

Feature	Athlon II X4 645	Celeron G4900
Integrated GPU	No	Yes
IGPU Model	—	UHD Graphics 610
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	Yes	VT-x
Target Use	Desktop	Budget

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Athlon II X4 645 was priced at $126, while the Celeron G4900 came in at $42. On launch pricing ($126 vs $42), Celeron G4900 was $84 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon II X4 645 delivers 18.8 pts/$ vs 56.4 pts/$ for the Celeron G4900 — making the Celeron G4900 the 99.8% better value option.

Feature	Athlon II X4 645	Celeron G4900
MSRP	$126	$42-67%
Performance per Dollar	18.8	56.4+200%
Release Date	2010	2018

Search Athlon II X4 645 on Amazon

Search Celeron G4900 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.