Celeron 900 vs Opteron 146

CPU

GPU

Celeron 900

35 WW2009

Buy on Amazon

Opteron 146

1 Cores1 Thrd89 WWMax: 2 GHz2003

Buy on Amazon

Celeron 900 vs Opteron 146 Performance Spectrum

Celeron 900

485

0.0%

505

+4.1%

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 900 vs Opteron 146 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 900 vs Opteron 146: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 900

2009

Why buy it

✅Draws 35W instead of 89W, a 54W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Opteron 146 across 37 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (485 vs 505).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Opteron 146, which brings 1 cores / 1 threads.
❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while Opteron 146 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Opteron 146

2003

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +7.7% higher average FPS across 37 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 1 cores / 1 threads.

Trade-offs

❌154.3% higher power demand at 89W vs 35W.

Quick Answers

So, is Opteron 146 better than Celeron 900?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Opteron 146 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Celeron 900 is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Opteron 146 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 7.7% more average FPS across 37 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Opteron 146 is the stronger fit. You are getting 4.1% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Opteron 146 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Opteron 146 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 7.7% average FPS lead across 37 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron 900 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2009 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (5.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on PGA478.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Celeron 900 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2009 vs 2003). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron 900 vs Opteron 146 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 900

The Celeron 900 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. Base frequency: 2.2 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 485 points. Launch price was $69.

Opteron 146

The Opteron 146 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Setembro 2003 (22 years ago). It is based on the SledgeHammer (2003−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 940. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 505 points. Launch price was $60.

⚡

Processing Power

The Opteron 146 is built on the SledgeHammer (2003−2005) architecture. In PassMark, the Celeron 900 scores 485 against the Opteron 146's 505 — a 4% lead for the Opteron 146. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron 900 vs 0 kB on the Opteron 146.

Feature	Celeron 900	Opteron 146
Cores / Threads	—	1 / 1
Boost Clock	—	2 GHz
Base Clock	2.2 GHz	—
L3 Cache	1 MB L2 Cache	0 kB
L2 Cache	—	1 MB
Process	45 nm-65%	130 nm
Architecture	—	SledgeHammer (2003−2005)
PassMark	485	505+4%
Geekbench 6 Single	220	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	229	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 900 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Opteron 146 uses 940 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron 900	Opteron 146
Socket	PGA478	940
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333	—
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	—
RAM Channels	1	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	0	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: No (Celeron 900) / not specified (Opteron 146). Primary use case: Celeron 900 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 900 rivals Pentium 4 2.80.