Celeron Dual-Core T3500 vs Athlon Neo MV-40
Celeron Dual-Core T3500
Athlon Neo MV-40
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 T3500 is positioned at rank 959 and the Athlon Neo MV-40 is on rank 1020, so the Celeron Dual-Core T3500 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 T3500
Performance Per Dollar Athlon Neo MV-40
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Celeron Dual-Core T3500 | Athlon Neo MV-40 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($15) | ✅ More affordable ($5) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Penryn (2008−2011) / 45 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Huron (2009) / 65 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Celeron Dual-Core T3500 | Athlon Neo MV-40 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+200%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($15) | ✅ More affordable ($5) |
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 T3500 and Athlon Neo MV-40
Celeron Dual-Core T3500
The Celeron Dual-Core T3500 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 26 September 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2.1 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: P. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,275 points. Launch price was $80.
Athlon Neo MV-40
The Athlon Neo MV-40 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Huron (2009) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.6 GHz. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: ASB1. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,274 points. Launch price was $149.
Processing Power
The Celeron Dual-Core T3500 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Athlon Neo MV-40 offers 1 cores / 1 threads — the Celeron Dual-Core T3500 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.1 GHz on the Celeron Dual-Core T3500 versus 1.6 GHz on the Athlon Neo MV-40 — a 27% clock advantage for the Celeron Dual-Core T3500. The Celeron Dual-Core T3500 uses the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture (45 nm), while the Athlon Neo MV-40 uses Huron (2009) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron Dual-Core T3500 scores 1,275 against the Athlon Neo MV-40's 1,274 — a 0.1% lead for the Celeron Dual-Core T3500.
| Feature | Celeron Dual-Core T3500 | Athlon Neo MV-40 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2+100% | 1 / 1 |
| Boost Clock | 2.1 GHz+31% | 1.6 GHz |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 512 kB |
| Process | 45 nm-31% | 65 nm |
| Architecture | Penryn (2008−2011) | Huron (2009) |
| PassMark | 1,275 | 1,274 |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron Dual-Core T3500 uses the P socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Athlon Neo MV-40 uses ASB1 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 800 on the Celeron Dual-Core T3500 versus DDR2-667 on the Athlon Neo MV-40 — the Celeron Dual-Core T3500 supports 199% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron Dual-Core T3500 supports up to 8 of RAM compared to 4 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: GL40,GM45,GM47 (Celeron Dual-Core T3500) and AMD ASB1 (Athlon Neo MV-40).
| Feature | Celeron Dual-Core T3500 | Athlon Neo MV-40 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | P | ASB1 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 2.0+82% |
| Max RAM Speed | 800+39900% | DDR2-667 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 8 | 4 GB+52428700% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: false (Celeron Dual-Core T3500) / not specified (Athlon Neo MV-40). Primary use case: Celeron Dual-Core T3500 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron Dual-Core T3500 rivals Pentium T4400.
| Feature | Celeron Dual-Core T3500 | Athlon Neo MV-40 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | false | — |
| Target Use | Budget | — |
Value Analysis
The Celeron Dual-Core T3500 launched at $80 MSRP, while the Athlon Neo MV-40 debuted at $100. At current prices ($15 vs $5), the Athlon Neo MV-40 is $10 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron Dual-Core T3500 delivers 85.0 pts/$ vs 254.8 pts/$ for the Athlon Neo MV-40 — making the Athlon Neo MV-40 the 99.9% better value option.
| Feature | Celeron Dual-Core T3500 | Athlon Neo MV-40 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $80-20% | $100 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $15 | $5-67% |
| Performance per Dollar | 85.0 | 254.8+200% |
| Release Date | 2010 | 2009 |
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 T3500 and Athlon Neo MV-40
