Celeron 1005M vs Athlon 64 FX-62

Aggregate performance score

Athlon 64 FX-62
2006
2 cores / 2 threads, 125 Watt
0.63
Celeron 1005M
2013
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.70
+11.1%

Celeron 1005M outperforms Athlon 64 FX-62 by a moderate 11% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Athlon 64 (Desktop) FX-62 and Celeron 1005M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking27872719
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
SeriesAthlon 64 (Desktop)Intel Celeron
Power efficiency0.481.89
Architecture codenameWindsor (2006−2007)Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
Release dateno data1 July 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$86

Detailed specifications

Athlon 64 (Desktop) FX-62 and Celeron 1005M basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores2 (Dual-core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads22
Base clock speedno data1.9 GHz
Boost clock speed2.8 GHz1.9 GHz
Bus rate1000 MHz5 GT/s
L1 cache256 KB128 KB
L2 cache1 MB512 KB
L3 cache0 KB2 MB
Chip lithography90 nm22 nm
Die size220 mm294 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data105 °C
Number of transistors243 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Athlon 64 (Desktop) FX-62 and Celeron 1005M compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration11
SocketAM2FCPGA988
Power consumption (TDP)125 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 64 (Desktop) FX-62 and Celeron 1005M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
My WiFino data-
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Flex Memory Accessno data+
Demand Based Switchingno data-
FDIno data+
Fast Memory Accessno data+

Security technologies

Athlon 64 (Desktop) FX-62 and Celeron 1005M technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon 64 (Desktop) FX-62 and Celeron 1005M are enumerated here.

VT-dno data-
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon 64 (Desktop) FX-62 and Celeron 1005M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1DDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data32 GB
Max memory channelsno data2
Maximum memory bandwidthno data25.6 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataIntel HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel Processors
Graphics max frequencyno data1 GHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Athlon 64 (Desktop) FX-62 and Celeron 1005M integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data3
eDPno data+
DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+
SDVOno data+
CRTno data+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon 64 (Desktop) FX-62 and Celeron 1005M.

PCIe versionno data2.0
PCI Express lanesno data16

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Athlon 64 FX-62 0.63
Celeron 1005M 0.70
+11.1%

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

Athlon 64 FX-62 993
Celeron 1005M 1109
+11.7%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.63 0.70
Chip lithography 90 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 125 Watt 35 Watt

Celeron 1005M has a 11.1% higher aggregate performance score, a 309.1% more advanced lithography process, and 257.1% lower power consumption.

The Celeron 1005M is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon 64 FX-62 in performance tests.

Note that Athlon 64 FX-62 is a desktop processor while Celeron 1005M is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 64 FX-62 and Celeron 1005M, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD Athlon 64 FX-62
Athlon 64 FX-62
Intel Celeron 1005M
Celeron 1005M

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.4 10 votes

Rate Athlon 64 FX-62 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 254 votes

Rate Celeron 1005M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Athlon 64 FX-62 or Celeron 1005M, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.