Celeron 925 vs Mobile Athlon 64 3400+

CPU

GPU

Celeron 925

35 WW2011

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Mobile Athlon 64 3400+

1 Cores1 Thrd1 WWMax: 2.2 GHz2005

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Celeron 925 vs Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ Performance Spectrum

Celeron 925

525

0.0%

Mobile Athlon 64 3400+

1 / 1

545

+3.8%

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 3400+ 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 3400+: 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

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (525 vs 545).
❌Launch MSRP is still $100 MSRP, while Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌3400% higher power demand at 35W vs 1W.

Mobile Athlon 64 3400+

2005

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +7.9% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 1W instead of 35W, a 34W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Quick Answers

So, is Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ better than Celeron 925?

Yes. Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 7.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 3.8% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 7.9% 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, Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ is the stronger fit. You are getting 3.8% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ is still the much better call for a fresh build. Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $100 MSRP, and it still gives you a 7.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron 925 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2011 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (5.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on that older platform.

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 2005). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron 925 vs Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ 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 3400+

The Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Agosto 2005 (20 years ago). It is based on the Clawhammer (2001−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.2 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Socket: 754. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Memory support: DDR1. Passmark benchmark score: 545 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ is built on the Clawhammer (2001−2005) architecture. In PassMark, the Celeron 925 scores 525 against the Mobile Athlon 64 3400+'s 545 — a 3.7% lead for the Mobile Athlon 64 3400+.

Feature	Celeron 925	Mobile Athlon 64 3400+
Cores / Threads	—	1 / 1
Boost Clock	—	2.2 GHz
Base Clock	2.3 GHz	—
L3 Cache	1 MB L2 Cache	—
L2 Cache	—	1 MB
Process	45 nm	—
Architecture	—	Clawhammer (2001−2005)
PassMark	525	545+4%

🧠

Memory & Platform

Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the Celeron 925 versus 400 on the Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ — 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 3400+).

Feature	Celeron 925	Mobile Athlon 64 3400+
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 3400+). Primary use case: Celeron 925 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 925 rivals Pentium 4 2.80; Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ rivals Pentium M 735.