Celeron J3355 vs Athlon II X2 255
Celeron J3355
Athlon II X2 255
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 J3355 is positioned at rank 425 and the Athlon II X2 255 is on rank 793, so the Celeron J3355 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Celeron J3355
Performance Per Dollar Athlon II X2 255
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Celeron J3355 | Athlon II X2 255 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($0) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($10) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Apollo Lake (2014−2016) / 14 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Regor (2009−2013) / 45 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Celeron J3355 | Athlon II X2 255 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($0) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($10) |
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 J3355 and Athlon II X2 255
Celeron J3355
The Celeron J3355 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 30 August 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Apollo Lake (2014−2016) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2.5 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1296. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Memory support: DDR3, DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 1,203 points. Launch price was $107.
Athlon II X2 255
The Athlon II X2 255 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 25 January 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Regor (2009−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 3.1 GHz, with boost up to 3.1 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: AM3. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,210 points. Launch price was $60.
Processing Power
Both the Celeron J3355 and Athlon II X2 255 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.5 GHz on the Celeron J3355 versus 3.1 GHz on the Athlon II X2 255 — a 21.4% clock advantage for the Athlon II X2 255 (base: 2 GHz vs 3.1 GHz). The Celeron J3355 uses the Apollo Lake (2014−2016) architecture (14 nm), while the Athlon II X2 255 uses Regor (2009−2013) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron J3355 scores 1,203 against the Athlon II X2 255's 1,210 — a 0.6% lead for the Athlon II X2 255. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 450 vs 265, a 51.7% lead for the Celeron J3355 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 850 vs 500 (51.9% advantage for the Celeron J3355). Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.
| Feature | Celeron J3355 | Athlon II X2 255 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 2.5 GHz | 3.1 GHz+24% |
| Base Clock | 2 GHz | 3.1 GHz+55% |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
| Process | 14 nm-69% | 45 nm |
| Architecture | Apollo Lake (2014−2016) | Regor (2009−2013) |
| PassMark | 1,203 | 1,210 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 450+70% | 265 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 850+70% | 500 |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron J3355 uses the FCBGA1296 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Athlon II X2 255 uses AM3 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2400 on the Celeron J3355 versus DDR3-1333 on the Athlon II X2 255 — the Celeron J3355 supports 28.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Athlon II X2 255 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: 6 (Celeron J3355) vs 0 (Athlon II X2 255) — the Celeron J3355 offers 6 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: N/A (SoC) (Celeron J3355) and 760G,780G,785G,790GX,870,880G,890GX,890FX (Athlon II X2 255).
| Feature | Celeron J3355 | Athlon II X2 255 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | FCBGA1296 | AM3 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0+50% | PCIe 2.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR4-2400+33% | DDR3-1333 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 8 GB | 16 GB+100% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ✅ |
| PCIe Lanes | 6 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x (Celeron J3355) vs AMD-V (Athlon II X2 255). The Celeron J3355 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics 500), while the Athlon II X2 255 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron J3355 targets Low Power, Athlon II X2 255 targets Legacy Desktop. Direct competitor: Celeron J3355 rivals Pentium J4205; Athlon II X2 255 rivals Pentium E5700.
| Feature | Celeron J3355 | Athlon II X2 255 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | No |
| IGPU Model | HD Graphics 500 | — |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x | AMD-V |
| Target Use | Low Power | Legacy Desktop |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Celeron J3355 and Athlon II X2 255
