Athlon 64 X2 3800+ vs Celeron 2955U
Primary details
Comparing Celeron 2955U and Athlon 64 X2 3800+ processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2831 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Celeron | no data |
| Power efficiency | 3.47 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Haswell (2013−2015) | Manchester (2005−2006) |
| Release date | 1 September 2013 (11 years ago) | August 2005 (19 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron 2955U and Athlon 64 X2 3800+ 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 | 1.4 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1.4 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 5 GT/s | no data |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 256K |
| L2 cache | 256K (per core) | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 2 MB (shared) | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 90 nm |
| Die size | 118 mm2 | 220 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 105 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 154 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron 2955U and Athlon 64 X2 3800+ 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 | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | FCBGA1168 | 939 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 89 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 2955U and Athlon 64 X2 3800+. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Smart Response | - | no data |
| GPIO | + | no data |
| Smart Connect | + | no data |
| FDI | - | no data |
| AMT | 9.5 | no data |
| Matrix Storage | - | no data |
| HD Audio | + | no data |
| RST | + | no data |
Security technologies
Celeron 2955U and Athlon 64 X2 3800+ technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
| Secure Key | + | no data |
| OS Guard | - | no data |
| Anti-Theft | - | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 2955U and Athlon 64 X2 3800+ are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | - | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 2955U and Athlon 64 X2 3800+. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | no data |
| Maximum memory size | 16 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel® HD Graphics for 4th Generation Intel® Processors | no data |
| Clear Video | + | no data |
| Graphics max frequency | 1 GHz | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron 2955U and Athlon 64 X2 3800+ integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 3 | no data |
| eDP | + | no data |
| DisplayPort | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 2955U and Athlon 64 X2 3800+.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 10 | no data |
| PCI support | - | no data |
| USB revision | 3.0 | no data |
| Total number of SATA ports | 2 | no data |
| Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports | 2 | no data |
| Integrated IDE | - | no data |
| Number of USB ports | 4 | no data |
| Integrated LAN | - | no data |
| UART | + | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 89 Watt |
Celeron 2955U has a 309.1% more advanced lithography process, and 493.3% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Celeron 2955U and Athlon 64 X2 3800+. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Celeron 2955U is a notebook processor while Athlon 64 X2 3800+ is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 2955U and Athlon 64 X2 3800+, 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.
