Celeron M 360 vs Athlon II P320

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Athlon II P320
2010
2 cores / 2 threads, 25 Watt
0.44
+214%
Celeron M 360
1 core / 1 thread, 21 Watt
0.14

Athlon II P320 outperforms Celeron M 360 by a whopping 214% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Athlon II P320 and Celeron M 360 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking29593334
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD Athlon IICeleron M
Power efficiency1.660.63
Architecture codenameChamplain (2010−2011)Dothan (2004−2005)
Release date12 May 2010 (14 years ago)no data

Detailed specifications

Athlon II P320 and Celeron M 360 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 cores2 (Dual-core)1 (Single-Core)
Threads21
Base clock speedno data1.4 GHz
Boost clock speed2.1 GHz1.4 GHz
Bus rate3200 MHz400 MHz
L1 cache256 KBno data
L2 cache1 MBno data
L3 cacheno data1 MB L2 KB
Chip lithography45 nm90 nm
Maximum core temperatureno data100 °C
64 bit support+-
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage rangeno data1.26V, 1.004V-1.292V

Compatibility

Information on Athlon II P320 and Celeron M 360 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.

SocketS1g4PPGA478, H-PBGA479
Power consumption (TDP)25 Watt21 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon II P320 and Celeron M 360. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsSSE-3, SSE4A, 3DNow!, MMX, DEP, SVMno data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data-
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data-
Demand Based Switchingno data-
PAEno data32 Bit
FSB parityno data-

Security technologies

Athlon II P320 and Celeron M 360 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon II P320 and Celeron M 360 are enumerated here.

VT-xno 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.

Athlon II P320 0.44
+214%
Celeron M 360 0.14

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.

Athlon II P320 695
+214%
Celeron M 360 221

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

Athlon II P320 36.45
+259%
Celeron M 360 131

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.44 0.14
Physical cores 2 1
Threads 2 1
Chip lithography 45 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 25 Watt 21 Watt

Athlon II P320 has a 214.3% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

Celeron M 360, on the other hand, has 19% lower power consumption.

The Athlon II P320 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M 360 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon II P320 and Celeron M 360, 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.


AMD Athlon II P320
Athlon II P320
Intel Celeron M 360
Celeron M 360

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.


3.5 76 votes

Rate Athlon II P320 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 12 votes

Rate Celeron M 360 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Athlon II P320 or Celeron M 360, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.