Celeron 560 vs Mobile Athlon 64 3000+

CPU

GPU

Celeron 560

31 WW2008

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Mobile Athlon 64 3000+

1 Cores1 Thrd512 WWMax: 2 GHz2003

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Celeron 560 vs Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ Performance Spectrum

Celeron 560

475

+5.6%

Mobile Athlon 64 3000+

1 / 1

450

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 560 vs Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ 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 560 vs Mobile Athlon 64 3000+: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 560

2008

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +8.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 31W instead of 512W, a 481W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $89 MSRP, while Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Mobile Athlon 64 3000+

2003

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron 560 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (450 vs 475).
❌1551.6% higher power demand at 512W vs 31W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 560 better than Mobile Athlon 64 3000+?

Yes. Celeron 560 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 8.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 5.6% 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 560 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 8.5% 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, Celeron 560 is the stronger fit. You are getting 5.6% better PassMark.

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

Celeron 560 is the better buy right now. Celeron 560 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $89 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 8.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (5.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 560 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2008 vs 2003). That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron 560 vs Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 560

The Celeron 560 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. Base frequency: 2.13 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 31 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 475 points. Launch price was $69.

Mobile Athlon 64 3000+

The Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Agosto 2003 (22 years ago). It is based on the Oakville (2003−2004) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2 GHz. L2 cache: 512K. Socket: 754. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB. Memory support: DDR1. Passmark benchmark score: 450 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ is built on the Oakville (2003−2004) architecture. In PassMark, the Celeron 560 scores 475 against the Mobile Athlon 64 3000+'s 450 — a 5.4% lead for the Celeron 560.

Feature	Celeron 560	Mobile Athlon 64 3000+
Cores / Threads	—	1 / 1
Boost Clock	—	2 GHz
Base Clock	2.13 GHz	—
L3 Cache	1 MB L2 Cache	—
L2 Cache	—	512K
Process	65 nm	—
Architecture	—	Oakville (2003−2004)
PassMark	475+6%	450

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 560 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ uses 754 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-667 on the Celeron 560 versus 400 on the Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ — the Celeron 560 supports 66.8% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 560 supports up to 4 GB of RAM compared to 2 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Celeron 560) vs 1 (Mobile Athlon 64 3000+). Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: Santa Rosa (Celeron 560) and 754 (Mobile Athlon 64 3000+).

Feature	Celeron 560	Mobile Athlon 64 3000+
Socket	PGA478	754
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0+82%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-667+67%	400
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB+100%	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 560) vs false (Mobile Athlon 64 3000+). Primary use case: Celeron 560 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 560 rivals Pentium T2310; Mobile Athlon 64 3000+ rivals Pentium M 735.