CPU
GPU
Celeron 857
Athlon 64 4000+
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 857 is positioned at rank 1201 and the Athlon 64 4000+ is on rank 1112, so the Athlon 64 4000+ offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Celeron 857
Performance Per Dollar Athlon 64 4000+
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Celeron 857 | Athlon 64 4000+ |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($10) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($30) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) / 32 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (San Diego (2001−2005) / 130 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Celeron 857 | Athlon 64 4000+ |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+213%) | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($10) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($30) |
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 857 and Athlon 64 4000+
Celeron 857
The Celeron 857 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 July 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.2 GHz, with boost up to 1.2 GHz. L3 cache: 2 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: 705 points. Launch price was $134.
Athlon 64 4000+
The Athlon 64 4000+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Janeiro 2001 (24 years ago). It is based on the San Diego (2001−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 939. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 675 points. Launch price was $160.
Processing Power
The Celeron 857 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Athlon 64 4000+ offers 1 cores / 1 threads — the Celeron 857 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 1.2 GHz on the Celeron 857 versus 2.6 GHz on the Athlon 64 4000+ — a 73.7% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 4000+. The Celeron 857 uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Athlon 64 4000+ uses San Diego (2001−2005) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 857 scores 705 against the Athlon 64 4000+'s 675 — a 4.3% lead for the Celeron 857. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 857 vs 0 kB on the Athlon 64 4000+.
| Feature | Celeron 857 | Athlon 64 4000+ |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2+100% | 1 / 1 |
| Boost Clock | 1.2 GHz | 2.6 GHz+117% |
| Base Clock | 1.2 GHz | — |
| L3 Cache | 2 MB (total) | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 512K+100% |
| Process | 32 nm-75% | 130 nm |
| Architecture | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) | San Diego (2001−2005) |
| PassMark | 705+4% | 675 |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron 857 uses the BGA1023 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Athlon 64 4000+ uses 939 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the Celeron 857 versus DDR2-800 on the Athlon 64 4000+ — the Celeron 857 supports 40% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 16 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Celeron 857) vs 0 (Athlon 64 4000+) — the Celeron 857 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: HM65,HM67 (Celeron 857) and AMD AM2 (Athlon 64 4000+).
| Feature | Celeron 857 | Athlon 64 4000+ |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | BGA1023 | 939 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0+82% | PCIe 1.1 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-1333+50% | DDR2-800 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 16 GB | 16 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: VT-x (Celeron 857) / not specified (Athlon 64 4000+). The Celeron 857 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)), while the Athlon 64 4000+ requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 857 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 857 rivals Pentium 967.
| Feature | Celeron 857 | Athlon 64 4000+ |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | No |
| IGPU Model | HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) | — |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | VT-x | — |
| Target Use | Budget | — |
Value Analysis
The Celeron 857 launched at $134 MSRP, while the Athlon 64 4000+ debuted at $482. At current prices ($10 vs $30), the Celeron 857 is $20 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron 857 delivers 70.5 pts/$ vs 22.5 pts/$ for the Athlon 64 4000+ — making the Celeron 857 the 103.2% better value option.
| Feature | Celeron 857 | Athlon 64 4000+ |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $134-72% | $482 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $10-67% | $30 |
| Performance per Dollar | 70.5+213% | 22.5 |
| Release Date | 2011 | 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 857 and Athlon 64 4000+
