Celeron 807 vs Athlon 64 3400+
Celeron 807
Athlon 64 3400+
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 807 is positioned at rank 1141 and the Athlon 64 3400+ is on rank 1116, so the Athlon 64 3400+ offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Celeron 807
Performance Per Dollar Athlon 64 3400+
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Celeron 807 | Athlon 64 3400+ |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($10) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($20) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) / 32 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Clawhammer (2001−2005) / 130 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Celeron 807 | Athlon 64 3400+ |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+96%) | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($10) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($20) |
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 807 and Athlon 64 3400+
Celeron 807
The Celeron 807 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 July 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 1 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.5 GHz, with boost up to 1.5 GHz. L3 cache: 1.5 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1023. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 535 points. Launch price was $70.
Athlon 64 3400+
The Athlon 64 3400+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Clawhammer (2001−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 754. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 545 points. Launch price was $149.
Processing Power
The Celeron 807 packs 1 cores / 2 threads, matching the Athlon 64 3400+'s 1 cores. Boost clocks reach 1.5 GHz on the Celeron 807 versus 2.4 GHz on the Athlon 64 3400+ — a 46.2% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 3400+. The Celeron 807 uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Athlon 64 3400+ uses Clawhammer (2001−2005) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 807 scores 535 against the Athlon 64 3400+'s 545 — a 1.9% lead for the Athlon 64 3400+. L3 cache: 1.5 MB (total) on the Celeron 807 vs 0 kB on the Athlon 64 3400+.
| Feature | Celeron 807 | Athlon 64 3400+ |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 1 / 2 | 1 / 1 |
| Boost Clock | 1.5 GHz | 2.4 GHz+60% |
| Base Clock | 1.5 GHz | — |
| L3 Cache | 1.5 MB (total) | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 512K+100% |
| Process | 32 nm-75% | 130 nm |
| Architecture | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) | Clawhammer (2001−2005) |
| PassMark | 535 | 545+2% |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron 807 uses the BGA1023 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Athlon 64 3400+ uses 754 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the Celeron 807 versus DDR-400 on the Athlon 64 3400+ — the Celeron 807 supports -203% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 807 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 120% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Celeron 807) vs 1 (Athlon 64 3400+). Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: QM67,QS67,HM67,HM65 (Celeron 807) and AMD 754 (Athlon 64 3400+).
| Feature | Celeron 807 | Athlon 64 3400+ |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | BGA1023 | 754 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0+82% | PCIe 1.1 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-1333 | DDR-400 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 16 GB+300% | 4 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2+100% | 1 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: VT-x (Celeron 807) / not specified (Athlon 64 3400+). The Celeron 807 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)), while the Athlon 64 3400+ requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 807 targets Mobile.
| Feature | Celeron 807 | Athlon 64 3400+ |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | No |
| IGPU Model | HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) | — |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | VT-x | — |
| Target Use | Mobile | — |
Value Analysis
The Celeron 807 launched at $70 MSRP, while the Athlon 64 3400+ debuted at $440. At current prices ($10 vs $20), the Celeron 807 is $10 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron 807 delivers 53.5 pts/$ vs 27.3 pts/$ for the Athlon 64 3400+ — making the Celeron 807 the 65% better value option.
| Feature | Celeron 807 | Athlon 64 3400+ |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $70-84% | $440 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $10-50% | $20 |
| Performance per Dollar | 53.5+96% | 27.3 |
| Release Date | 2012 | 2001 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Celeron 807 and Athlon 64 3400+
