Athlon 64 2800+ vs Celeron U3600

VS

Primary details

Comparing Celeron U3600 and Athlon 64 2800+ processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the rankingnot ratednot rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesIntel Celeronno data
Architecture codenameWestmere (2010−2011)NewCastle (2004)
Release date11 January 2011 (13 years ago)April 2004 (20 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$100

Detailed specifications

Celeron U3600 and Athlon 64 2800+ 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 speed1.2 GHzno data
Boost clock speed0.1 GHz1.8 GHz
Bus typeDMI 1.0no data
Bus rate1 × 2.5 GT/sno data
Multiplier9no data
L1 cache128 KB128 KB
L2 cache512 KB512 KB
L3 cache2 MB0 KB
Chip lithography32 nm130 nm
Die size81 mm2193 mm2
Maximum core temperature105 °Cno data
Number of transistors382 Million69 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron U3600 and Athlon 64 2800+ 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1
SocketBGA1288754
Power consumption (TDP)18 Watt89 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron U3600 and Athlon 64 2800+. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

FMA+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access+no data
PAE36 Bitno data
FDI+no data
Fast Memory Access+no data

Security technologies

Celeron U3600 and Athlon 64 2800+ technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-no data
EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron U3600 and Athlon 64 2800+ are enumerated here.

VT-d-no data
VT-x+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron U3600 and Athlon 64 2800+. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3-800no data
Maximum memory size8 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth12.799 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel® HD Graphics for Previous Generation Intel® Processorsno data
Clear Video+no data
Graphics max frequency500 MHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron U3600 and Athlon 64 2800+ integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported2no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron U3600 and Athlon 64 2800+.

PCIe version2.0no data
PCI Express lanes16no 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.

Celeron U3600 579
+96.3%
Athlon 64 2800+ 295

Pros & cons summary


Physical cores 2 1
Threads 2 1
Chip lithography 32 nm 130 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 18 Watt 89 Watt

Celeron U3600 has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 306.3% more advanced lithography process, and 394.4% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Celeron U3600 and Athlon 64 2800+. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Celeron U3600 is a notebook processor while Athlon 64 2800+ is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron U3600 and Athlon 64 2800+, 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.


Intel Celeron U3600
Celeron U3600
AMD Athlon 64 2800+
Athlon 64 2800+

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 1 vote

Rate Celeron U3600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 35 votes

Rate Athlon 64 2800 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron U3600 or Athlon 64 2800+, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.