Celeron 450 vs Athlon 64 X2 3800+

VS

Aggregate performance score

Athlon 64 X2 3800+
2005
2 cores / 2 threads, 89 Watt
0.40
+48.1%
Celeron 450
2008
1 core / 1 thread, 35 Watt
0.27

Athlon 64 X2 3800+ outperforms Celeron 450 by a considerable 48% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Athlon 64 X2 3800+ and Celeron 450 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking30133140
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Power efficiency0.430.73
Architecture codenameManchester (2005−2006)Conroe-L (2007−2008)
Release dateAugust 2005 (19 years ago)August 2008 (16 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Athlon 64 X2 3800+ and Celeron 450 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)1 (Single-Core)
Threads21
Base clock speedno data2.2 GHz
Boost clock speed2 GHz2.2 GHz
L1 cache256K64 KB
L2 cache512 KB512 KB
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography90 nm65 nm
Die size220 mm277 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data60 °C
Number of transistors154 million105 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage rangeno data1V-1.3375V

Compatibility

Information on Athlon 64 X2 3800+ and Celeron 450 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
Socket939LGA775
Power consumption (TDP)89 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 64 X2 3800+ and Celeron 450. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data-
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Demand Based Switchingno data-
FSB parityno data-

Security technologies

Athlon 64 X2 3800+ and Celeron 450 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon 64 X2 3800+ and Celeron 450 are enumerated here.

VT-dno data-
VT-xno data-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon 64 X2 3800+ and Celeron 450. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR1, DDR2, DDR3

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 X2 3800+ 0.40
+48.1%
Celeron 450 0.27

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 X2 3800+ 629
+45.3%
Celeron 450 433

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Athlon 64 X2 3800+ 203
+27.7%
Celeron 450 159

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Athlon 64 X2 3800+ 376
+134%
Celeron 450 161

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.40 0.27
Physical cores 2 1
Threads 2 1
Chip lithography 90 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 89 Watt 35 Watt

Athlon 64 X2 3800+ has a 48.1% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

Celeron 450, on the other hand, has a 38.5% more advanced lithography process, and 154.3% lower power consumption.

The Athlon 64 X2 3800+ is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 450 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 64 X2 3800+ and Celeron 450, 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 X2 3800+
Athlon 64 X2 3800+
Intel Celeron 450
Celeron 450

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.


2.9 94 votes

Rate Athlon 64 X2 3800 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.7 44 votes

Rate Celeron 450 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Athlon 64 X2 3800+ or Celeron 450, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.