Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Celeron D 325

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron D 325

Report a correction
Much newer manufacturing process 90 nm vs 130 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Lower typical power consumption 59.31W vs 72.31W Around 20% lower typical power consumption
Lower annual home energy cost 17.59 $/year vs 21.44 $/year Around 20% lower annual home energy cost
Lower annual commercial energy cost 63.95 $/year vs 77.96 $/year Around 20% lower annual commercial energy cost
Front view of AMD Athlon 64 3000+

Reasons to consider the
AMD Athlon 64 3000+

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 1 MB vs 0.25 MB 4x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 4x more l2 cache per core
Has a NX bit Yes vs No Somewhat common; Prevents a common class of security exploits
Higher Maximum operating temperature 70 °C vs 67 °C Around 5% higher Maximum operating temperature

Features Key features of the Celeron D 325  vs Athlon 64 3000+ 

L2 cache

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Celeron D 325  vs
Athlon 64 3000+ 
Cores Single core Single core
Socket type
478
754

features

Has a NX bit No Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
SSE3
SSE
3DNow!

details

Celeron D 325  vs
Athlon 64 3000+ 
Threads 1 1
L2 cache 0.25 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 90 nm 130 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 67°C Unknown - 70°C

power consumption

TDP 73W 89W
Annual home energy cost 17.59 $/year 21.44 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 63.95 $/year 77.96 $/year
Typical power consumption 59.31W 72.31W
Intel Celeron D 325
Report a correction
AMD Athlon 64 3000+
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus