Celeron 1005M vs Athlon II Neo K325
Celeron 1005M
Athlon II Neo K325
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 Celeron 1005M is positioned at rank 1018 and the Athlon II Neo K325 is on rank 912, so the Athlon II Neo K325 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Celeron 1005M
Performance Per Dollar Athlon II Neo K325
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Celeron 1005M | Athlon II Neo K325 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($86) | ✅ More affordable ($25) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) / 22 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Geneva (2010) / 45 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Celeron 1005M | Athlon II Neo K325 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+242%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($86) | ✅ More affordable ($25) |
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 Celeron 1005M and Athlon II Neo K325
Celeron 1005M
The Celeron 1005M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 July 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.9 GHz, with boost up to 1.9 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,116 points. Launch price was $86.
Athlon II Neo K325
The Athlon II Neo K325 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Geneva (2010) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.3 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: S1. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,111 points. Launch price was $149.
Processing Power
Both the Celeron 1005M and Athlon II Neo K325 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.9 GHz on the Celeron 1005M versus 1.3 GHz on the Athlon II Neo K325 — a 37.5% clock advantage for the Celeron 1005M. The Celeron 1005M uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Athlon II Neo K325 uses Geneva (2010) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 1005M scores 1,116 against the Athlon II Neo K325's 1,111 — a 0.4% lead for the Celeron 1005M. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 350 vs 736, a 71.1% lead for the Athlon II Neo K325 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 607 vs 1,235 (68.2% advantage for the Athlon II Neo K325).
| Feature | Celeron 1005M | Athlon II Neo K325 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 1.9 GHz+46% | 1.3 GHz |
| Base Clock | 1.9 GHz | — |
| L3 Cache | 2 MB | — |
| L2 Cache | 512 kB | 1 MB+100% |
| Process | 22 nm-51% | 45 nm |
| Architecture | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) | Geneva (2010) |
| PassMark | 1,116 | 1,111 |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 656 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 350 | 736+110% |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 607 | 1,235+103% |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron 1005M uses the PGA988 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Athlon II Neo K325 uses S1 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3-1600 memory speed. The Celeron 1005M supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 120% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Celeron 1005M) vs 0 (Athlon II Neo K325) — the Celeron 1005M offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: HM76,HM77 (Celeron 1005M) and M880G (Athlon II Neo K325).
| Feature | Celeron 1005M | Athlon II Neo K325 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | PGA988 | S1 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0+50% | PCIe 2.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-1600 | DDR3-800 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 32 GB+300% | 8 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Celeron 1005M) vs AMD-V (Athlon II Neo K325). The Celeron 1005M includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)), while the Athlon II Neo K325 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Athlon II Neo K325 targets Low Power.
| Feature | Celeron 1005M | Athlon II Neo K325 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | No |
| IGPU Model | Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) | — |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | AMD-V |
| Target Use | — | Low Power |
Value Analysis
The Celeron 1005M launched at $86 MSRP, while the Athlon II Neo K325 debuted at $60.
| Feature | Celeron 1005M | Athlon II Neo K325 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $86 | $60-30% |
| Avg Price (30d) | — | $25 |
| Release Date | 2013 | 2010 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Celeron 1005M and Athlon II Neo K325
