Celeron 925 vs Mobile Athlon 64 3200+

CPU

GPU

Celeron 925

35 WW2011

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Mobile Athlon 64 3200+

1 Cores1 Thrd1 WWMax: 2 GHz2003

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Celeron 925 vs Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ Performance Spectrum

Celeron 925

525

+4.0%

Mobile Athlon 64 3200+

1 / 1

505

0.0%

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 925 vs Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ 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 925 vs Mobile Athlon 64 3200+: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 925

2011

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $100 MSRP, while Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌3400% higher power demand at 35W vs 1W.

Mobile Athlon 64 3200+

2003

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 35W, a 34W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (505 vs 525).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 925 better than Mobile Athlon 64 3200+?

Yes. Celeron 925 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 4% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron 925 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.3% 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, Celeron 925 is the stronger fit. You are getting 4% better PassMark.

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

Celeron 925 is the better buy right now. Celeron 925 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $100 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (5.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Celeron 925 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2003). That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron 925 vs Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ Technical Specifications

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

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.

Mobile Athlon 64 3200+

The Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Agosto 2003 (22 years ago). It is based on the Newark (2003) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Socket: 754. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Memory support: DDR1. Passmark benchmark score: 505 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ is built on the Newark (2003) architecture. In PassMark, the Celeron 925 scores 525 against the Mobile Athlon 64 3200+'s 505 — a 3.9% lead for the Celeron 925.

Feature	Celeron 925	Mobile Athlon 64 3200+
Cores / Threads	—	1 / 1
Boost Clock	—	2 GHz
Base Clock	2.3 GHz	—
L3 Cache	1 MB L2 Cache	—
L2 Cache	—	1 MB
Process	45 nm	—
Architecture	—	Newark (2003)
PassMark	525+4%	505

🧠

Memory & Platform

Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the Celeron 925 versus 400 on the Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ — the Celeron 925 supports 233.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 925 supports up to 4 GB of RAM compared to 2 GB — 100% 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 754 (Mobile Athlon 64 3200+).

Feature	Celeron 925	Mobile Athlon 64 3200+
Socket	—	754
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0+82%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333+233%	400
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB+100%	2 GB
RAM Channels	1	1
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: No (Celeron 925) vs false (Mobile Athlon 64 3200+). Primary use case: Celeron 925 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 925 rivals Pentium 4 2.80; Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ rivals Pentium M 735.