Celeron 925 vs Opteron 246

CPU

GPU

Celeron 925

35 WW2011

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Opteron 246

1 Cores1 Thrd89 WWMax: 2 GHz2003

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Celeron 925 vs Opteron 246 Performance Spectrum

Celeron 925

525

0.0%

538

+2.5%

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 246 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 246: 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

❌Lower PassMark (525 vs 538).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Opteron 246, which brings 1 cores / 1 threads.
❌Launch MSRP is still $100 MSRP, while Opteron 246 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Opteron 246

2003

Why buy it

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

Trade-offs

❌154.3% higher power demand at 89W vs 35W.

Quick Answers

So, is Opteron 246 better than Celeron 925?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Opteron 246 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, Opteron 246 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.7% more average FPS across 46 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Opteron 246 is the stronger fit. You are getting 2.5% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Opteron 246 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Opteron 246 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $100 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.7% average FPS lead across 46 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron 925 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2011 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (5.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 2003). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron 925 vs Opteron 246 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 246

The Opteron 246 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Agosto 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: 538 points. Launch price was $109.

⚡

Processing Power

The Opteron 246 is built on the SledgeHammer (2003−2005) architecture. In PassMark, the Celeron 925 scores 525 against the Opteron 246's 538 — a 2.4% lead for the Opteron 246. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron 925 vs 0 kB on the Opteron 246.

Feature	Celeron 925	Opteron 246
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	538+2%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: No (Celeron 925) / not specified (Opteron 246). Primary use case: Celeron 925 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 925 rivals Pentium 4 2.80.