Celeron 925 vs Opteron 146

Celeron 925 vs Opteron 146 Performance Spectrum

Celeron 925

525

+4.0%

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 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 925 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 925

2011

Why buy it

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

Trade-offs

❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Opteron 146, which brings 1 cores / 1 threads.
❌Launch MSRP is still $100 MSRP, while Opteron 146 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Opteron 146

2003

Why buy it

✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 1 cores / 1 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (505 vs 525).
❌154.3% higher power demand at 89W vs 35W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 925 better than Opteron 146?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Opteron 146 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Celeron 925 is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron 925 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.2% more average FPS across 48 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 $100 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 48 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (5.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 Opteron 146 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.

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 925 scores 525 against the Opteron 146's 505 — a 3.9% lead for the Celeron 925. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron 925 vs 0 kB on the Opteron 146.

Feature	Celeron 925	Opteron 146
Cores / Threads	—	1 / 1
Boost Clock	—	2 GHz
Base Clock	2.3 GHz	—
L3 Cache	1 MB L2 Cache	0 kB
L2 Cache	—	1 MB
Process	45 nm-65%	130 nm
Architecture	—	SledgeHammer (2003−2005)
PassMark	525+4%	505

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: No (Celeron 925) / not specified (Opteron 146). Primary use case: Celeron 925 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 925 rivals Pentium 4 2.80.