Athlon X2 QL-64 vs Celeron 1007U

Athlon X2 QL-64 vs Celeron 1007U Performance Spectrum

Athlon X2 QL-64

2 / 2

1,614

+0.2%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron 1007U

2 / 2

1,610

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 X2 QL-64 vs Celeron 1007U 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 X2 QL-64 vs Celeron 1007U: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Athlon X2 QL-64

2009

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 17W, a 16W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $50 MSRP, while Celeron 1007U mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 1007U can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Celeron 1007U

2013

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge), while Athlon X2 QL-64 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,610 vs 1,614).
❌1600% higher power demand at 17W vs 1W.

Quick Answers

So, is Athlon X2 QL-64 better than Celeron 1007U?

Yes. Athlon X2 QL-64 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.2% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Athlon X2 QL-64 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.5% 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, Athlon X2 QL-64 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Athlon X2 QL-64 is the better buy right now. Athlon X2 QL-64 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $50 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (32.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 1007U makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2009). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Athlon X2 QL-64 vs Celeron 1007U Technical Specifications

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

Athlon X2 QL-64

The Athlon X2 QL-64 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Lion (2008−2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2.1 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: S1. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,614 points. Launch price was $149.

Celeron 1007U

The Celeron 1007U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 January 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.5 GHz, with boost up to 1.5 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1023. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,610 points. Launch price was $86.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Athlon X2 QL-64 and Celeron 1007U share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.1 GHz on the Athlon X2 QL-64 versus 1.5 GHz on the Celeron 1007U — a 33.3% clock advantage for the Athlon X2 QL-64. The Athlon X2 QL-64 uses the Lion (2008−2009) architecture (65 nm), while the Celeron 1007U uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon X2 QL-64 scores 1,614 against the Celeron 1007U's 1,610 — a 0.2% lead for the Athlon X2 QL-64. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon X2 QL-64 vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 1007U.

Feature	Athlon X2 QL-64	Celeron 1007U
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.1 GHz+40%	1.5 GHz
Base Clock	—	1.5 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB	256K (per core)+25500%
Process	65 nm	22 nm-66%
Architecture	Lion (2008−2009)	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
PassMark	1,614	1,610

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon X2 QL-64 uses the S1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 1007U uses BGA1023 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-667 on the Athlon X2 QL-64 versus DDR3-1600 on the Celeron 1007U — the Celeron 1007U supports 139.9% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 1007U supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Athlon X2 QL-64) vs 16 (Celeron 1007U) — the Celeron 1007U offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Socket S1 (Athlon X2 QL-64) and Intel FCBGA1023 (Celeron 1007U).

Feature	Athlon X2 QL-64	Celeron 1007U
Socket	S1	BGA1023
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-667	DDR3-1600+140%
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	32 GB+300%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (Athlon X2 QL-64) / not specified (Celeron 1007U). The Celeron 1007U includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)), while the Athlon X2 QL-64 requires a dedicated GPU.