Celeron 925 vs Athlon 64 3400+
Celeron 925
Athlon 64 3400+
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 3400+ is on rank 1116, so the Athlon 64 3400+ 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 3400+
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Celeron 925 | Athlon 64 3400+ |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($100) | ✅ More affordable ($20) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Legacy / 45 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Clawhammer (2001−2005) / 130 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Celeron 925 | Athlon 64 3400+ |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+419%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($100) | ✅ More affordable ($20) |
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 3400+
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 3400+
The Athlon 64 3400+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Clawhammer (2001−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 754. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 545 points. Launch price was $149.
Processing Power
The Athlon 64 3400+ is built on the Clawhammer (2001−2005) architecture. In PassMark, the Celeron 925 scores 525 against the Athlon 64 3400+'s 545 — a 3.7% lead for the Athlon 64 3400+. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron 925 vs 0 kB on the Athlon 64 3400+.
| Feature | Celeron 925 | Athlon 64 3400+ |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | — | 1 / 1 |
| Boost Clock | — | 2.4 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.3 GHz | — |
| L3 Cache | 1 MB L2 Cache | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | — | 512K |
| Process | 45 nm-65% | 130 nm |
| Architecture | — | Clawhammer (2001−2005) |
| PassMark | 525 | 545+4% |
Memory & Platform
Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the Celeron 925 versus DDR-400 on the Athlon 64 3400+ — the Celeron 925 supports -203% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 4 GB of RAM. Both feature 1-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: GL40,GM45 (Celeron 925) and AMD 754 (Athlon 64 3400+).
| Feature | Celeron 925 | Athlon 64 3400+ |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | — | 754 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0+82% | PCIe 1.1 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-1333 | DDR-400 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| RAM Channels | 1 | 1 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: No (Celeron 925) / not specified (Athlon 64 3400+). Primary use case: Celeron 925 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 925 rivals Pentium 4 2.80.
| Feature | Celeron 925 | Athlon 64 3400+ |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | No | — |
| Target Use | Budget | — |
Value Analysis
The Celeron 925 launched at $100 MSRP, while the Athlon 64 3400+ debuted at $440. At current prices ($100 vs $20), the Athlon 64 3400+ is $80 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron 925 delivers 5.3 pts/$ vs 27.3 pts/$ for the Athlon 64 3400+ — making the Athlon 64 3400+ the 135.4% better value option.
| Feature | Celeron 925 | Athlon 64 3400+ |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $100-77% | $440 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $100 | $20-80% |
| Performance per Dollar | 5.3 | 27.3+415% |
| 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 925 and Athlon 64 3400+
