Celeron E1200 vs Athlon 64 4000+
Celeron E1200
Athlon 64 4000+
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 E1200 is positioned at rank 952 and the Athlon 64 4000+ is on rank 1112, so the Celeron E1200 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Celeron E1200
Performance Per Dollar Athlon 64 4000+
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Celeron E1200 | Athlon 64 4000+ |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($98) | ✅ More affordable ($30) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Allendale (2006−2009) / 65 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (San Diego (2001−2005) / 130 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Celeron E1200 | Athlon 64 4000+ |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+232%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($98) | ✅ More affordable ($30) |
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 E1200 and Athlon 64 4000+
Celeron E1200
The Celeron E1200 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 January 2008 (17 years ago). It is based on the Allendale (2006−2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (total). Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 665 points. Launch price was $40.
Athlon 64 4000+
The Athlon 64 4000+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Janeiro 2001 (24 years ago). It is based on the San Diego (2001−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 939. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 675 points. Launch price was $160.
Processing Power
The Celeron E1200 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Athlon 64 4000+ offers 1 cores / 1 threads — the Celeron E1200 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 1.6 GHz on the Celeron E1200 versus 2.6 GHz on the Athlon 64 4000+ — a 47.6% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 4000+. The Celeron E1200 uses the Allendale (2006−2009) architecture (65 nm), while the Athlon 64 4000+ uses San Diego (2001−2005) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron E1200 scores 665 against the Athlon 64 4000+'s 675 — a 1.5% lead for the Athlon 64 4000+. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.
| Feature | Celeron E1200 | Athlon 64 4000+ |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2+100% | 1 / 1 |
| Boost Clock | 1.6 GHz | 2.6 GHz+63% |
| Base Clock | 1.6 GHz | — |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 512 kB (total) | 512K |
| Process | 65 nm-50% | 130 nm |
| Architecture | Allendale (2006−2009) | San Diego (2001−2005) |
| PassMark | 665 | 675+2% |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 210 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 380 | — |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron E1200 uses the LGA775 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Athlon 64 4000+ uses 939 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR2-800 memory speed. The Athlon 64 4000+ 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. Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: G31,P35,G41 (Celeron E1200) and AMD AM2 (Athlon 64 4000+).
| Feature | Celeron E1200 | Athlon 64 4000+ |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA775 | 939 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 1.1 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR2-800 | DDR2-800 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 8 GB | 16 GB+100% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: No (Celeron E1200) / not specified (Athlon 64 4000+). Primary use case: Celeron E1200 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron E1200 rivals Pentium E2140.
| Feature | Celeron E1200 | Athlon 64 4000+ |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | No | — |
| Target Use | Budget | — |
Value Analysis
The Celeron E1200 launched at $53 MSRP, while the Athlon 64 4000+ debuted at $482. At current prices ($98 vs $30), the Athlon 64 4000+ is $68 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron E1200 delivers 6.8 pts/$ vs 22.5 pts/$ for the Athlon 64 4000+ — making the Athlon 64 4000+ the 107.3% better value option.
| Feature | Celeron E1200 | Athlon 64 4000+ |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $53-89% | $482 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $98 | $30-69% |
| Performance per Dollar | 6.8 | 22.5+231% |
| Release Date | 2008 | 2001 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Celeron E1200 and Athlon 64 4000+
