Celeron M 743 vs Athlon 64 TF-20
Aggregate performance score
Athlon 64 TF-20 outperforms Celeron M 743 by a small 7% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Athlon 64 TF-20 and Celeron M 743 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3300 | 3320 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | AMD Athlon 64 | Intel Celeron M |
| Power efficiency | 0.60 | 1.41 |
| Architecture codename | Sherman (2009) | Penryn (2008−2011) |
| Release date | 1 May 2009 (15 years ago) | 1 September 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $107 |
Detailed specifications
Athlon 64 TF-20 and Celeron M 743 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 | 1 (Single-Core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 1 |
| Boost clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 1.3 GHz |
| Bus rate | 667 MHz | 800 MHz |
| L1 cache | 0.1 MB | 64 KB |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 1 MB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | no data | 107 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 95 °C | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 410 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon 64 TF-20 and Celeron M 743 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.
| Socket | S1g1 | BGA965 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 10 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 64 TF-20 and Celeron M 743. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX, 3DNow!, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, AMD64, Enhanced Virus Protection | no data |
| VirusProtect | + | - |
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.
Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core
Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.
3DMark06 CPU
3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.16 | 0.15 |
| Recency | 1 May 2009 | 1 September 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 10 Watt |
Athlon 64 TF-20 has a 6.7% higher aggregate performance score.
Celeron M 743, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 months, a 44.4% more advanced lithography process, and 150% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Athlon 64 TF-20 and Celeron M 743.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 64 TF-20 and Celeron M 743, 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.
