
Athlon X2 450 vs Celeron E3500

Athlon X2 450

Celeron E3500
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 X2 450 is positioned at rank 760 and the Celeron E3500 is on rank 778, so the Athlon X2 450 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Athlon X2 450
Performance Per Dollar Celeron E3500
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon X2 450 | Celeron E3500 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($15) | ✅ More affordable ($10) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Kaveri (2014−2015) / 28 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Wolfdale (2008−2010) / 45 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon X2 450 | Celeron E3500 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+49%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($15) | ✅ More affordable ($10) |
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 X2 450 and Celeron E3500

Athlon X2 450
The Athlon X2 450 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Kaveri (2014−2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 3.5 GHz, with boost up to 3.9 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB (total). Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FM2+. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-1866. Passmark benchmark score: 1,295 points. Launch price was $149.

Celeron E3500
The Celeron E3500 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 29 August 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Wolfdale (2008−2010) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.7 GHz, with boost up to 2.7 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB (total). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,290 points. Launch price was $62.
Processing Power
Both the Athlon X2 450 and Celeron E3500 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.9 GHz on the Athlon X2 450 versus 2.7 GHz on the Celeron E3500 — a 36.4% clock advantage for the Athlon X2 450 (base: 3.5 GHz vs 2.7 GHz). The Athlon X2 450 uses the Kaveri (2014−2015) architecture (28 nm), while the Celeron E3500 uses Wolfdale (2008−2010) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon X2 450 scores 1,295 against the Celeron E3500's 1,290 — a 0.4% lead for the Athlon X2 450. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 450 vs 347, a 25.8% lead for the Athlon X2 450 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 800 vs 624 (24.7% advantage for the Athlon X2 450).
| Feature | Athlon X2 450 | Celeron E3500 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 3.9 GHz+44% | 2.7 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3.5 GHz+30% | 2.7 GHz |
| L3 Cache | — | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB (total) | 1 MB (total) |
| Process | 28 nm-38% | 45 nm |
| Architecture | Kaveri (2014−2015) | Wolfdale (2008−2010) |
| PassMark | 1,295 | 1,290 |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 1,500 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 450+30% | 347 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 800+28% | 624 |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon X2 450 uses the FM2+ socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron E3500 uses LGA775 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3-1866 memory speed. The Athlon X2 450 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Athlon X2 450) vs 0 (Celeron E3500) — the Athlon X2 450 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: A88X,A78,A68H (Athlon X2 450) and G31,G41,P45 (Celeron E3500).
| Feature | Athlon X2 450 | Celeron E3500 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | FM2+ | LGA775 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0+173% | PCIe 1.1 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-1866 | DDR3-1066 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 16 GB+100% | 8 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (Athlon X2 450) vs VT-x (Celeron E3500). Primary use case: Athlon X2 450 targets Basic Desktop, Celeron E3500 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Athlon X2 450 rivals Core i3-3220; Celeron E3500 rivals Pentium E5200.
| Feature | Athlon X2 450 | Celeron E3500 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| IGPU Model | None | — |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | AMD-V | VT-x |
| Target Use | Basic Desktop | Budget |
Value Analysis
The Athlon X2 450 launched at $60 MSRP, while the Celeron E3500 debuted at $62. At current prices ($15 vs $10), the Celeron E3500 is $5 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon X2 450 delivers 86.3 pts/$ vs 129.0 pts/$ for the Celeron E3500 — making the Celeron E3500 the 39.6% better value option.
| Feature | Athlon X2 450 | Celeron E3500 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $60-3% | $62 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $15 | $10-33% |
| Performance per Dollar | 86.3 | 129.0+49% |
| Release Date | 2014 | 2010 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












