Celeron 807 vs Mobile Athlon 64 3200+

Celeron 807 vs Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ Performance Spectrum

Celeron 807

1 / 2

535

+5.9%

Mobile Athlon 64 3200+

1 / 1

505

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 807 vs Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ 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 807 vs Mobile Athlon 64 3200+: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 807

2012

Why buy it

✅+5.9% higher PassMark.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge), while Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $70 MSRP, while Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌1600% higher power demand at 17W vs 1W.

Mobile Athlon 64 3200+

2003

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 17W, a 16W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (505 vs 535).
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 807 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 807 better than Mobile Athlon 64 3200+?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ is ahead with a 1.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 807 pulls ahead with 5.9% better PassMark.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 807 is the stronger fit. You are getting 5.9% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron 807 is the better buy right now. Celeron 807 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $70 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 5.9% better PassMark. The compromise is that Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 1.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (7.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 807 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2012 vs 2003) and more multi-core headroom with 1 cores / 2 threads instead of 1/1. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron 807 vs Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ Technical Specifications

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

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.

Mobile Athlon 64 3200+

The Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Agosto 2003 (22 years ago). It is based on the Newark (2003) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Socket: 754. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Memory support: DDR1. Passmark benchmark score: 505 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron 807 packs 1 cores / 2 threads, matching the Mobile Athlon 64 3200+'s 1 cores. Boost clocks reach 1.5 GHz on the Celeron 807 versus 2 GHz on the Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ — a 28.6% clock advantage for the Mobile Athlon 64 3200+. The Celeron 807 uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ uses Newark (2003). In PassMark, the Celeron 807 scores 535 against the Mobile Athlon 64 3200+'s 505 — a 5.8% lead for the Celeron 807.

Feature	Celeron 807	Mobile Athlon 64 3200+
Cores / Threads	1 / 2	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1.5 GHz	2 GHz+33%
Base Clock	1.5 GHz	—
L3 Cache	1.5 MB (total)	—
L2 Cache	256K (per core)+25500%	1 MB
Process	32 nm	—
Architecture	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)	Newark (2003)
PassMark	535+6%	505

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 807 uses the BGA1023 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ uses 754 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the Celeron 807 versus 400 on the Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ — the Celeron 807 supports 233.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 807 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 2 GB — 700% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Celeron 807) vs 1 (Mobile Athlon 64 3200+). Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: QM67,QS67,HM67,HM65 (Celeron 807) and 754 (Mobile Athlon 64 3200+).

Feature	Celeron 807	Mobile Athlon 64 3200+
Socket	BGA1023	754
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0+82%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333+233%	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: VT-x (Celeron 807) vs false (Mobile Athlon 64 3200+). The Celeron 807 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)), while the Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 807 targets Mobile. Direct competitor: Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ rivals Pentium M 735.