Celeron N3350 vs Athlon II X2 245
Celeron N3350
Athlon II X2 245
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 N3350 is positioned at rank 1068 and the Athlon II X2 245 is on rank 862, so the Athlon II X2 245 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Celeron N3350
Performance Per Dollar Athlon II X2 245
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Celeron N3350 | Athlon II X2 245 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($107) | ✅ More affordable ($15) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Apollo Lake (2014−2016) / 14 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Regor (2009−2013) / 45 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Celeron N3350 | Athlon II X2 245 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+627%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($107) | ✅ More affordable ($15) |
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 N3350 and Athlon II X2 245
Celeron N3350
The Celeron N3350 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 1.1 GHz, with boost up to 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1296. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR3, DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 1,112 points. Launch price was $24.
Athlon II X2 245
The Athlon II X2 245 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 23 July 2009 (16 years ago). It is based on the Regor (2009−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.9 GHz, with boost up to 2.9 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: AM3. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,134 points. Launch price was $35.
Processing Power
Both the Celeron N3350 and Athlon II X2 245 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the Celeron N3350 versus 2.9 GHz on the Athlon II X2 245 — a 18.9% clock advantage for the Athlon II X2 245 (base: 1.1 GHz vs 2.9 GHz). The Celeron N3350 uses the Apollo Lake (2014−2016) architecture (14 nm), while the Athlon II X2 245 uses Regor (2009−2013) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron N3350 scores 1,112 against the Athlon II X2 245's 1,134 — a 2% lead for the Athlon II X2 245. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.
| Feature | Celeron N3350 | Athlon II X2 245 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 2.4 GHz | 2.9 GHz+21% |
| Base Clock | 1.1 GHz | 2.9 GHz+164% |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 2 MB+100% |
| Process | 14 nm-69% | 45 nm |
| Architecture | Apollo Lake (2014−2016) | Regor (2009−2013) |
| PassMark | 1,112 | 1,134+2% |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 250 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 450 | — |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron N3350 uses the FCBGA1296 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Athlon II X2 245 uses AM3 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches LPDDR4-2400 on the Celeron N3350 versus 1333 on the Athlon II X2 245 — the Athlon II X2 245 supports 198.8% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Athlon II X2 245 supports up to 16 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 N3350) vs 0 (Athlon II X2 245) — the Celeron N3350 offers 6 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SoC (Celeron N3350) and AM2+,AM3 (Athlon II X2 245).
| Feature | Celeron N3350 | Athlon II X2 245 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | FCBGA1296 | AM3 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0+50% | PCIe 2.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | LPDDR4-2400 | 1333+33225% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 8 GB+52428700% | 16 |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 6 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Celeron N3350) vs true (Athlon II X2 245). The Celeron N3350 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics 500), while the Athlon II X2 245 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron N3350 targets Entry Level Laptop/NUC. Direct competitor: Celeron N3350 rivals AMD A4-9120; Athlon II X2 245 rivals Pentium E5500.
| Feature | Celeron N3350 | Athlon II X2 245 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | No |
| IGPU Model | Intel HD Graphics 500 | None |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d, EPT | true |
| Target Use | Entry Level Laptop/NUC | — |
Value Analysis
The Celeron N3350 launched at $107 MSRP, while the Athlon II X2 245 debuted at $66.
| Feature | Celeron N3350 | Athlon II X2 245 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $107 | $66-38% |
| Avg Price (30d) | — | $15 |
| Release Date | 2016 | 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 N3350 and Athlon II X2 245
