Athlon Neo MV-40 vs Celeron Dual-Core T3500
Athlon Neo MV-40
Celeron Dual-Core T3500
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 Neo MV-40 is positioned at rank 1020 and the Celeron Dual-Core T3500 is on rank 959, so the Celeron Dual-Core T3500 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Athlon Neo MV-40
Performance Per Dollar Celeron Dual-Core T3500
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon Neo MV-40 | Celeron Dual-Core T3500 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($5) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($15) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Huron (2009) / 65 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Penryn (2008−2011) / 45 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon Neo MV-40 | Celeron Dual-Core T3500 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+200%) | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($5) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($15) |
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 Neo MV-40 and Celeron Dual-Core T3500
Athlon Neo MV-40
The Athlon Neo MV-40 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Huron (2009) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.6 GHz. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: ASB1. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,274 points. Launch price was $149.
Celeron Dual-Core T3500
The Celeron Dual-Core T3500 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 26 September 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2.1 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: P. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,275 points. Launch price was $80.
Processing Power
The Athlon Neo MV-40 packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Celeron Dual-Core T3500 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Celeron Dual-Core T3500 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 1.6 GHz on the Athlon Neo MV-40 versus 2.1 GHz on the Celeron Dual-Core T3500 — a 27% clock advantage for the Celeron Dual-Core T3500. The Athlon Neo MV-40 uses the Huron (2009) architecture (65 nm), while the Celeron Dual-Core T3500 uses Penryn (2008−2011) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon Neo MV-40 scores 1,274 against the Celeron Dual-Core T3500's 1,275 — a 0.1% lead for the Celeron Dual-Core T3500.
| Feature | Athlon Neo MV-40 | Celeron Dual-Core T3500 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 1 / 1 | 2 / 2+100% |
| Boost Clock | 1.6 GHz | 2.1 GHz+31% |
| L2 Cache | 512 kB | 1 MB+100% |
| Process | 65 nm | 45 nm-31% |
| Architecture | Huron (2009) | Penryn (2008−2011) |
| PassMark | 1,274 | 1,275 |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon Neo MV-40 uses the ASB1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron Dual-Core T3500 uses P (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-667 on the Athlon Neo MV-40 versus 800 on the Celeron Dual-Core T3500 — the Celeron Dual-Core T3500 supports 199% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron Dual-Core T3500 supports up to 8 of RAM compared to 4 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: AMD ASB1 (Athlon Neo MV-40) and GL40,GM45,GM47 (Celeron Dual-Core T3500).
| Feature | Athlon Neo MV-40 | Celeron Dual-Core T3500 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | ASB1 | P |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0+82% | PCIe 1.1 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR2-667 | 800+39900% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 4 GB+52428700% | 8 |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: not specified (Athlon Neo MV-40) / false (Celeron Dual-Core T3500). Primary use case: Celeron Dual-Core T3500 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron Dual-Core T3500 rivals Pentium T4400.
| Feature | Athlon Neo MV-40 | Celeron Dual-Core T3500 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | — | No |
| AVX-512 | — | No |
| Virtualization | — | false |
| Target Use | — | Budget |
Value Analysis
The Athlon Neo MV-40 launched at $100 MSRP, while the Celeron Dual-Core T3500 debuted at $80. At current prices ($5 vs $15), the Athlon Neo MV-40 is $10 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon Neo MV-40 delivers 254.8 pts/$ vs 85.0 pts/$ for the Celeron Dual-Core T3500 — making the Athlon Neo MV-40 the 99.9% better value option.
| Feature | Athlon Neo MV-40 | Celeron Dual-Core T3500 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $100 | $80-20% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $5-67% | $15 |
| Performance per Dollar | 254.8+200% | 85.0 |
| Release Date | 2009 | 2010 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Athlon Neo MV-40 and Celeron Dual-Core T3500
