Athlon 64 FX-74 vs Celeron Dual-Core T3500
Aggregate performance score
Celeron Dual-Core T3500 outperforms Athlon 64 FX-74 by a substantial 31% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2902 | 3082 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.01 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Celeron Dual-Core | no data |
| Power efficiency | no data | 0.47 |
| Designer | Intel | AMD |
| Architecture codename | Penryn (2008−2011) | Windsor (2006−2007) |
| Release date | 26 September 2010 (15 years ago) | November 2006 (19 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $80 | $500 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Celeron Dual-Core T3500 and Athlon 64 FX-74 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 |
| Boost clock speed | 2.1 GHz | 3 GHz |
| Bus rate | 800 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 90 nm |
| Die size | 107 mm2 | 235 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 410 Million | 227 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron Dual-Core T3500 and Athlon 64 FX-74 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 | no data | 1 |
| Socket | Socket P PGA478 | F |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 1 MB | 125 Watt |
Security technologies
Celeron Dual-Core T3500 and Athlon 64 FX-74 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3500 and Athlon 64 FX-74. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR1 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.72 | 0.55 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 1 Watt | 125 Watt |
Celeron Dual-Core T3500 has a 30.9% higher aggregate performance score, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 12400% lower power consumption.
The Intel Celeron Dual-Core T3500 is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD Athlon 64 FX-74 in performance tests.
Be aware that Celeron Dual-Core T3500 is a notebook processor while Athlon 64 FX-74 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
