Celeron M 520 vs Athlon II M300
Primary details
Comparing Athlon II M300 and Celeron M 520 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | AMD Athlon II | Celeron M |
| Architecture codename | Caspian (2009) | Merom (2006−2008) |
| Release date | 10 September 2009 (15 years ago) | no data (2024 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Athlon II M300 and Celeron M 520 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) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 1.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2 GHz | 1.6 GHz |
| Bus rate | 3200 MHz | 533 MHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | no data |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | no data |
| L3 cache | no data | 1 MB L2 Cache |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 65 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 0.95V-1.3V |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon II M300 and Celeron M 520 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 | Socket S1 (S1g3) | PPGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 30 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon II M300 and Celeron M 520. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, Enhanced 3DNow!, NX bit, AMD64, PowerNow!, AMD Virtualization | no data |
| PowerNow | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | - |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
| FSB parity | no data | - |
Security technologies
Athlon II M300 and Celeron M 520 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 Athlon II M300 and Celeron M 520 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | no data | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon II M300 and Celeron M 520. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR2 | no 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.
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 2 | 1 |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 30 Watt |
Athlon II M300 has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron M 520, on the other hand, has 16.7% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Athlon II M300 and Celeron M 520. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon II M300 and Celeron M 520, 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.
