Celeron 807 vs Mobile Athlon 64 3400+

Celeron 807 vs Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ Performance Spectrum

Celeron 807

1 / 2

535

0.0%

Mobile Athlon 64 3400+

1 / 1

545

+1.9%

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 3400+ 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 3400+: 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

✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge), while Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (535 vs 545).
❌Launch MSRP is still $70 MSRP, while Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌1600% higher power demand at 17W vs 1W.

Mobile Athlon 64 3400+

2005

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +9.1% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 1W instead of 17W, a 16W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 807 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ better than Celeron 807?

Yes. Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 9.1% 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, Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 9.1% 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, Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ 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?

Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $70 MSRP, and it still gives you a 9.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron 807 only looks good on raw value math because it is a cheap legacy laptop chip, not because it is a real desktop gaming recommendation. It simply does not keep up in modern games, especially when the gap is already 9.1% in the shared gaming data.

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 2005). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron 807 vs Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ 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 3400+

The Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Agosto 2005 (20 years ago). It is based on the Clawhammer (2001−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.2 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Socket: 754. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Memory support: DDR1. Passmark benchmark score: 545 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron 807 packs 1 cores / 2 threads, matching the Mobile Athlon 64 3400+'s 1 cores. Boost clocks reach 1.5 GHz on the Celeron 807 versus 2.2 GHz on the Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ — a 37.8% clock advantage for the Mobile Athlon 64 3400+. The Celeron 807 uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ uses Clawhammer (2001−2005). In PassMark, the Celeron 807 scores 535 against the Mobile Athlon 64 3400+'s 545 — a 1.9% lead for the Mobile Athlon 64 3400+.

Feature	Celeron 807	Mobile Athlon 64 3400+
Cores / Threads	1 / 2	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1.5 GHz	2.2 GHz+47%
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)	Clawhammer (2001−2005)
PassMark	535	545+2%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 807 uses the BGA1023 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Mobile 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 400 on the Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ — 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 3400+). Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: QM67,QS67,HM67,HM65 (Celeron 807) and 754 (Mobile Athlon 64 3400+).

Feature	Celeron 807	Mobile Athlon 64 3400+
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 3400+). The Celeron 807 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)), while the Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 807 targets Mobile. Direct competitor: Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ rivals Pentium M 735.