Celeron M 360 vs Athlon II P320
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 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 | Champlain (2010−2011) | Dothan (2004−2005) |
| Release date | 12 May 2010 (14 years ago) | no data (2024 years ago) |
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 cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 1.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.1 GHz | 1.4 GHz |
| Bus rate | 3200 MHz | 400 MHz |
| L1 cache | 256 KB | no data |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | no data |
| L3 cache | no data | 1 MB L2 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 90 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 1.26V, 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.
| Socket | S1g4 | PPGA478, H-PBGA479 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 21 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 extensions | SSE-3, SSE4A, 3DNow!, MMX, DEP, SVM | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | - |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
| PAE | no data | 32 Bit |
| FSB parity | no data | - |
Security technologies
Athlon II P320 and Celeron M 360 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 P320 and Celeron M 360 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | 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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 2 | 1 |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 21 Watt |
Athlon II P320 has 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.
We couldn't decide between Athlon II P320 and Celeron M 360. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon II P320 and Celeron M 360, 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.
