Celeron 925 vs Athlon 64 3300+
Celeron 925
Athlon 64 3300+
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 925 is positioned at rank 1202 and the Athlon 64 3300+ is on rank 1097, so the Athlon 64 3300+ offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Celeron 925
Performance Per Dollar Athlon 64 3300+
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Celeron 925 | Athlon 64 3300+ |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($100) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($200) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Legacy / 45 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (NewCastle (2004) / 130 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Celeron 925 | Athlon 64 3300+ |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+101%) | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($100) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($200) |
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 925 and Athlon 64 3300+
Celeron 925
The Celeron 925 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. Base frequency: 2.3 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache. Built on 45 nm process technology. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 525 points. Launch price was $69.
Athlon 64 3300+
The Athlon 64 3300+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the NewCastle (2004) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 256 kB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 754. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 522 points. Launch price was $149.
Processing Power
The Athlon 64 3300+ is built on the NewCastle (2004) architecture. In PassMark, the Celeron 925 scores 525 against the Athlon 64 3300+'s 522 — a 0.6% lead for the Celeron 925. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron 925 vs 0 kB on the Athlon 64 3300+.
| Feature | Celeron 925 | Athlon 64 3300+ |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | — | 1 / 1 |
| Boost Clock | — | 2.4 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.3 GHz | — |
| L3 Cache | 1 MB L2 Cache | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | — | 256 kB |
| Process | 45 nm-65% | 130 nm |
| Architecture | — | NewCastle (2004) |
| PassMark | 525 | 522 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 150 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 150 |
Memory & Platform
Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the Celeron 925 versus DDR1-400 on the Athlon 64 3300+ — the Celeron 925 supports 100% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 925 supports up to 4 GB of RAM compared to 3 GB — 28.6% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 1-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: GL40,GM45 (Celeron 925) and VIA K8T800,nForce3 (Athlon 64 3300+).
| Feature | Celeron 925 | Athlon 64 3300+ |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | — | 754 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0+82% | PCIe 1.1 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-1333+200% | DDR1-400 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 4 GB+33% | 3 GB |
| RAM Channels | 1 | 1 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: No (Celeron 925) vs None (Athlon 64 3300+). Primary use case: Celeron 925 targets Budget, Athlon 64 3300+ targets Retro Desktop. Direct competitor: Celeron 925 rivals Pentium 4 2.80.
| Feature | Celeron 925 | Athlon 64 3300+ |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| IGPU Model | — | None |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | No | None |
| Target Use | Budget | Retro Desktop |
Value Analysis
The Celeron 925 launched at $100 MSRP, while the Athlon 64 3300+ debuted at $200. At current prices ($100 vs $200), the Celeron 925 is $100 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron 925 delivers 5.3 pts/$ vs 2.6 pts/$ for the Athlon 64 3300+ — making the Celeron 925 the 67.2% better value option.
| Feature | Celeron 925 | Athlon 64 3300+ |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $100-50% | $200 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $100-50% | $200 |
| Performance per Dollar | 5.3+104% | 2.6 |
| Release Date | 2011 | 2004 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Celeron 925 and Athlon 64 3300+
