Celeron 420 vs Mobile Athlon 64 2800+

Celeron 420 vs Mobile Athlon 64 2800+ Performance Spectrum

Celeron 420

1 / 1

425

+1.2%

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 420 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 420 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 420

2007

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +9.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 35W instead of 512W, a 477W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $39 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 420 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (420 vs 425).
❌1362.9% higher power demand at 512W vs 35W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 420 better than Mobile Athlon 64 2800+?

Yes. Celeron 420 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 9.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 1.2% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron 420 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 9.6% 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 420 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.2% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Celeron 420 is the better buy right now. Celeron 420 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $39 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 9.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (10.9 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 420 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2007 vs 2004) and more multi-core headroom with 1 cores / 1 threads instead of 1/1. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron 420 vs Mobile Athlon 64 2800+ Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 420

The Celeron 420 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 June 2007 (18 years ago). It is based on the Conroe-L (2007−2008) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (total). Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 425 points. Launch price was $23.

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 420 and Mobile Athlon 64 2800+ share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.6 GHz on the Celeron 420 versus 1.8 GHz on the Mobile Athlon 64 2800+ — a 11.8% clock advantage for the Mobile Athlon 64 2800+. The Celeron 420 uses the Conroe-L (2007−2008) architecture (65 nm), while the Mobile Athlon 64 2800+ uses Oakville (2003−2004). In PassMark, the Celeron 420 scores 425 against the Mobile Athlon 64 2800+'s 420 — a 1.2% lead for the Celeron 420.

Feature	Celeron 420	Mobile Athlon 64 2800+
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1.6 GHz	1.8 GHz+12%
Base Clock	1.6 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	—
L2 Cache	512 kB (total)	512K
Process	65 nm	—
Architecture	Conroe-L (2007−2008)	Oakville (2003−2004)
PassMark	425+1%	420

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 420 uses the LGA775 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Mobile Athlon 64 2800+ uses 754 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-800 on the Celeron 420 versus 400 on the Mobile Athlon 64 2800+ — the Celeron 420 supports 100% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 420 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 2 GB — 700% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Celeron 420) vs 1 (Mobile Athlon 64 2800+). Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: 945,G31,G41 (Celeron 420) and 754 (Mobile Athlon 64 2800+).

Feature	Celeron 420	Mobile Athlon 64 2800+
Socket	LGA775	754
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-800+100%	400
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+700%	2 GB
RAM Channels	2+100%	1
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: No (Celeron 420) vs false (Mobile Athlon 64 2800+). Primary use case: Celeron 420 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 420 rivals Pentium 4 2.80; Mobile Athlon 64 2800+ rivals Pentium M 725.