Athlon 64 FX-53 vs Celeron J3060
Aggregate performance score
Celeron J3060 outperforms Athlon 64 FX-53 by a small 5% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron J3060 and Athlon 64 FX-53 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2978 | 2999 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.02 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Celeron | no data |
| Power efficiency | 6.78 | 0.44 |
| Architecture codename | Airmont (2016) | Clawhammer (2001−2005) |
| Release date | 15 January 2016 (8 years ago) | June 2004 (20 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $107 | $30 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron J3060 and Athlon 64 FX-53 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) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 1.6 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 2.48 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Bus type | IDI | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 130 nm |
| Die size | no data | 193 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 90 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 105 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron J3060 and Athlon 64 FX-53 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 (Uniprocessor) | 1 |
| Socket | FCBGA1170 | 939 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6 Watt | 89 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron J3060 and Athlon 64 FX-53. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Smart Response | - | no data |
| GPIO | + | no data |
| Smart Connect | - | no data |
| HD Audio | + | no data |
| RST | - | no data |
Security technologies
Celeron J3060 and Athlon 64 FX-53 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
| Secure Boot | + | no data |
| Secure Key | + | no data |
| Identity Protection | + | - |
| OS Guard | - | no data |
| Anti-Theft | - | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron J3060 and Athlon 64 FX-53 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | - | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| VT-i | - | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron J3060 and Athlon 64 FX-53. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3L-1600 | no data |
| Maximum memory size | 8 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Max video memory | 8 GB | no data |
| Quick Sync Video | + | - |
| Clear Video | + | no data |
| Clear Video HD | + | no data |
| Graphics max frequency | 700 MHz | no data |
| Execution Units | 12 | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron J3060 and Athlon 64 FX-53 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 3 | no data |
| eDP | + | no data |
| DisplayPort | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Celeron J3060 and Athlon 64 FX-53 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | + | no data |
| OpenGL | + | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron J3060 and Athlon 64 FX-53.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 4 | no data |
| USB revision | 2.0/3.0 | no data |
| Total number of SATA ports | 5 | no data |
| Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports | 2 | no data |
| Number of USB ports | 5 | 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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.43 | 0.41 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 1 |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6 Watt | 89 Watt |
Celeron J3060 has a 4.9% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 828.6% more advanced lithography process, and 1383.3% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Celeron J3060 and Athlon 64 FX-53.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron J3060 and Athlon 64 FX-53, 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.
