Celeron 2.80 vs Mobile Athlon 64 2800+

Celeron 2.80 vs Mobile Athlon 64 2800+ Performance Spectrum

Celeron 2.80

1 / 1

428

+1.9%

Mobile Athlon 64 2800+

1 / 1

420

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

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.

Celeron 2.80 vs Mobile Athlon 64 2800+ 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.

Celeron 2.80 vs Mobile Athlon 64 2800+: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 2.80

2003

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +9.8% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 73W instead of 512W, a 439W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $100 MSRP, while Mobile Athlon 64 2800+ mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Mobile Athlon 64 2800+

2004

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron 2.80 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (420 vs 428).
❌601.4% higher power demand at 512W vs 73W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 2.80 better than Mobile Athlon 64 2800+?

Yes. Celeron 2.80 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 9.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 1.9% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron 2.80 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 9.8% 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 2.80 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.9% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Celeron 2.80 is the better buy right now. Celeron 2.80 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $100 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 9.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (4.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Mobile Athlon 64 2800+ makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2004 vs 2003). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron 2.80 vs Mobile Athlon 64 2800+ Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 2.80

The Celeron 2.80 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Northwood (2002−2004) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 128 kB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 73 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 428 points. Launch price was $69.

Mobile Athlon 64 2800+

The Mobile Athlon 64 2800+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Agosto 2004 (21 years ago). It is based on the Oakville (2003−2004) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.8 GHz. L2 cache: 512K. Socket: 754. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB. Memory support: DDR1. Passmark benchmark score: 420 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 2.80 and Mobile Athlon 64 2800+ share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.8 GHz on the Celeron 2.80 versus 1.8 GHz on the Mobile Athlon 64 2800+ — a 43.5% clock advantage for the Celeron 2.80. The Celeron 2.80 uses the Northwood (2002−2004) architecture (130 nm), while the Mobile Athlon 64 2800+ uses Oakville (2003−2004). In PassMark, the Celeron 2.80 scores 428 against the Mobile Athlon 64 2800+'s 420 — a 1.9% lead for the Celeron 2.80.

Feature	Celeron 2.80	Mobile Athlon 64 2800+
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2.8 GHz+56%	1.8 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	—
L2 Cache	128 kB	512K+300%
Process	130 nm	—
Architecture	Northwood (2002−2004)	Oakville (2003−2004)
PassMark	428+2%	420

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 2.80 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Mobile Athlon 64 2800+ uses 754 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR1-400 memory speed. The Celeron 2.80 supports up to 4 GB of RAM compared to 2 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 1-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: 845,848,865,875 (Celeron 2.80) and 754 (Mobile Athlon 64 2800+).

Feature	Celeron 2.80	Mobile Athlon 64 2800+
Socket	PGA478	754
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR1-400	400
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB+100%	2 GB
RAM Channels	1	1
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: No (Celeron 2.80) vs false (Mobile Athlon 64 2800+). Primary use case: Celeron 2.80 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 2.80 rivals Pentium 4 2.80; Mobile Athlon 64 2800+ rivals Pentium M 725.