Mobile Athlon 64 2700+ vs Celeron 2.60
Mobile Athlon 64 2700+
Celeron 2.60
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 Mobile Athlon 64 2700+ is positioned at rank 874 and the Celeron 2.60 is on rank 1045, so the Mobile Athlon 64 2700+ offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Mobile Athlon 64 2700+
Performance Per Dollar Celeron 2.60
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Mobile Athlon 64 2700+ | Celeron 2.60 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($0) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($10) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Clawhammer (2001−2005) / Standard Node) | 🛑 Legacy (Northwood (2002−2004) / 130 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Mobile Athlon 64 2700+ | Celeron 2.60 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Mobile Athlon 64 2700+ and Celeron 2.60
Mobile Athlon 64 2700+
The Mobile Athlon 64 2700+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Agosto 2005 (20 years ago). It is based on the Clawhammer (2001−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.6 GHz. L2 cache: 512K. Socket: 754. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB. Memory support: DDR1. Passmark benchmark score: 405 points. Launch price was $69.
Celeron 2.60
The Celeron 2.60 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Northwood (2002−2004) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 128 kB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 73 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 385 points. Launch price was $69.
Processing Power
Both the Mobile Athlon 64 2700+ and Celeron 2.60 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.6 GHz on the Mobile Athlon 64 2700+ versus 2.6 GHz on the Celeron 2.60 — a 47.6% clock advantage for the Celeron 2.60. The Mobile Athlon 64 2700+ uses the Clawhammer (2001−2005) architecture, while the Celeron 2.60 uses Northwood (2002−2004) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Mobile Athlon 64 2700+ scores 405 against the Celeron 2.60's 385 — a 5.1% lead for the Mobile Athlon 64 2700+.
| Feature | Mobile Athlon 64 2700+ | Celeron 2.60 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 1 / 1 | 1 / 1 |
| Boost Clock | 1.6 GHz | 2.6 GHz+63% |
| L3 Cache | — | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 512K+300% | 128 kB |
| Process | — | 130 nm |
| Architecture | Clawhammer (2001−2005) | Northwood (2002−2004) |
| PassMark | 405+5% | 385 |
Memory & Platform
The Mobile Athlon 64 2700+ uses the 754 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron 2.60 uses PGA478 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 400 on the Mobile Athlon 64 2700+ versus DDR2-400 on the Celeron 2.60 — the Mobile Athlon 64 2700+ supports 198% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 2.60 supports up to 4 GB of RAM compared to 2 — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 1-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: 754 (Mobile Athlon 64 2700+) and 845,865,915 (Celeron 2.60).
| Feature | Mobile Athlon 64 2700+ | Celeron 2.60 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | 754 | PGA478 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 1.1 |
| Max RAM Speed | 400+19900% | DDR2-400 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 2 | 4 GB+209715100% |
| RAM Channels | 1 | 1 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: false (Mobile Athlon 64 2700+) vs No (Celeron 2.60). Primary use case: Celeron 2.60 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Mobile Athlon 64 2700+ rivals Pentium M 715; Celeron 2.60 rivals Pentium 4 2.40.
| Feature | Mobile Athlon 64 2700+ | Celeron 2.60 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| IGPU Model | None | — |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | false | No |
| Target Use | — | Budget |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Mobile Athlon 64 2700+ and Celeron 2.60
