Celeron 1007U vs Athlon 64 FX-62
Aggregate performance score
Athlon 64 FX-62 outperforms Celeron 1007U by a moderate 19% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Athlon 64 (Desktop) FX-62 and Celeron 1007U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2771 | 2852 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | Athlon 64 (Desktop) | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 0.48 | 2.95 |
| Architecture codename | Windsor (2006−2007) | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) |
| Release date | no data (2024 years ago) | 20 January 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $86 |
Detailed specifications
Athlon 64 (Desktop) FX-62 and Celeron 1007U 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 cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 1.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 1.5 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI |
| Bus rate | 1000 MHz | 5 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 15 |
| L1 cache | no data | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 256K (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 2 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | no data | 118 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,400 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon 64 (Desktop) FX-62 and Celeron 1007U 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 configuration | no data | 1 |
| Socket | no data | FCBGA1023 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 17 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 64 (Desktop) FX-62 and Celeron 1007U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| My WiFi | no data | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | + |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
| FDI | no data | + |
| Fast Memory Access | no data | + |
Security technologies
Athlon 64 (Desktop) FX-62 and Celeron 1007U technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Anti-Theft | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon 64 (Desktop) FX-62 and Celeron 1007U are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon 64 (Desktop) FX-62 and Celeron 1007U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 32 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 25.6 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel Processors |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1 GHz |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Athlon 64 (Desktop) FX-62 and Celeron 1007U integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
| eDP | no data | + |
| DisplayPort | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| SDVO | no data | + |
| CRT | no data | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon 64 (Desktop) FX-62 and Celeron 1007U.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
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.
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.
3DMark06 CPU
3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.63 | 0.53 |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 17 Watt |
Athlon 64 FX-62 has a 18.9% higher aggregate performance score.
Celeron 1007U, on the other hand, has a 309.1% more advanced lithography process, and 635.3% lower power consumption.
The Athlon 64 FX-62 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 1007U in performance tests.
Note that Athlon 64 FX-62 is a desktop processor while Celeron 1007U is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 64 FX-62 and Celeron 1007U, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
