Athlon 64 FX-51 vs Celeron 420

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron 420
2007
1 core / 1 thread, 35 Watt
0.15
Athlon 64 FX-51
2003
1 core / 1 thread, 89 Watt
0.28
+86.7%

Athlon 64 FX-51 outperforms Celeron 420 by an impressive 87% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron 420 and Athlon 64 FX-51 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking33233135
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Power efficiency0.410.30
Architecture codenameConroe-L (2007−2008)SledgeHammer (2003−2005)
Release dateJune 2007 (17 years ago)September 2003 (21 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$23no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron 420 and Athlon 64 FX-51 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 cores1 (Single-Core)1 (Single-Core)
Threads11
Base clock speed1.6 GHzno data
Boost clock speed1.6 GHz2.2 GHz
L1 cache64 KB128 KB
L2 cache512 KB1 MB
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography65 nm130 nm
Die size77 mm2193 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)60 °Cno data
Number of transistors105 million105 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage range1V-1.3375Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Celeron 420 and Athlon 64 FX-51 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
SocketLGA775940
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt89 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 420 and Athlon 64 FX-51. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)-no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Demand Based Switching-no data
FSB parity-no data

Security technologies

Celeron 420 and Athlon 64 FX-51 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 420 and Athlon 64 FX-51 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 420 and Athlon 64 FX-51. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1, DDR2, DDR3no 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.

Celeron 420 0.15
Athlon 64 FX-51 0.28
+86.7%

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 420 235
Athlon 64 FX-51 437
+86%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.15 0.28
Chip lithography 65 nm 130 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 89 Watt

Celeron 420 has a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 154.3% lower power consumption.

Athlon 64 FX-51, on the other hand, has a 86.7% higher aggregate performance score.

The Athlon 64 FX-51 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 420 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 420 and Athlon 64 FX-51, 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 420
Celeron 420
AMD Athlon 64 FX-51
Athlon 64 FX-51

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.


2.9 170 votes

Rate Celeron 420 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 1 vote

Rate Athlon 64 FX-51 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron 420 or Athlon 64 FX-51, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.