Celeron Dual-Core T3000 vs Athlon 64 FX-72
Celeron Dual-Core T3000
Athlon 64 FX-72
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 Dual-Core T3000 is positioned at rank 824 and the Athlon 64 FX-72 is on rank 1100, so the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Celeron Dual-Core T3000
Performance Per Dollar Athlon 64 FX-72
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Celeron Dual-Core T3000 | Athlon 64 FX-72 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($15) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($40) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Penryn-1M (2009) / 45 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Windsor (2006−2007) / 90 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Celeron Dual-Core T3000 | Athlon 64 FX-72 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+167%) | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($15) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($40) |
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 Dual-Core T3000 and Athlon 64 FX-72
Celeron Dual-Core T3000
The Celeron Dual-Core T3000 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Penryn-1M (2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.8 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: P. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,797 points. Launch price was $69.
Athlon 64 FX-72
The Athlon 64 FX-72 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Windsor (2006−2007) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: F. Thermal design power (TDP): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR1. Passmark benchmark score: 1,794 points. Launch price was $149.
Processing Power
Both the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Athlon 64 FX-72 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.8 GHz on the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 versus 2.8 GHz on the Athlon 64 FX-72 — a 43.5% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 FX-72. The Celeron Dual-Core T3000 uses the Penryn-1M (2009) architecture (45 nm), while the Athlon 64 FX-72 uses Windsor (2006−2007) (90 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 scores 1,797 against the Athlon 64 FX-72's 1,794 — a 0.2% lead for the Celeron Dual-Core T3000.
| Feature | Celeron Dual-Core T3000 | Athlon 64 FX-72 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 1.8 GHz | 2.8 GHz+56% |
| L3 Cache | — | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
| Process | 45 nm-50% | 90 nm |
| Architecture | Penryn-1M (2009) | Windsor (2006−2007) |
| PassMark | 1,797 | 1,794 |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron Dual-Core T3000 uses the P socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Athlon 64 FX-72 uses F (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-800 on the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 versus DDR2-800 on the Athlon 64 FX-72 — the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 supports 40% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Athlon 64 FX-72 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Celeron Dual-Core T3000) vs 0 (Athlon 64 FX-72) — the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Mobile Intel 4 Series (Celeron Dual-Core T3000) and AMD F (1207) (Athlon 64 FX-72).
| Feature | Celeron Dual-Core T3000 | Athlon 64 FX-72 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | P | F |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 1.1 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-800+50% | DDR2-800 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 8 GB | 16 GB+100% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: false (Celeron Dual-Core T3000) / not specified (Athlon 64 FX-72).
| Feature | Celeron Dual-Core T3000 | Athlon 64 FX-72 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | false | — |
Value Analysis
The Celeron Dual-Core T3000 launched at $80 MSRP, while the Athlon 64 FX-72 debuted at $799. At current prices ($15 vs $40), the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 is $25 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 delivers 119.8 pts/$ vs 44.9 pts/$ for the Athlon 64 FX-72 — making the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 the 91% better value option.
| Feature | Celeron Dual-Core T3000 | Athlon 64 FX-72 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $80-90% | $799 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $15-63% | $40 |
| Performance per Dollar | 119.8+167% | 44.9 |
| Release Date | 2009 | 2006 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Athlon 64 FX-72
