Celeron 1017U vs Athlon X2 QL-66
Aggregate performance score
Celeron 1017U outperforms Athlon X2 QL-66 by a whopping 138% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Athlon X2 QL-66 and Celeron 1017U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3002 | 2516 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | 2x AMD Athlon | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 1.08 | 5.29 |
| Architecture codename | Lion (2008−2009) | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) |
| Release date | 1 September 2009 (15 years ago) | 1 July 2013 (11 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Athlon X2 QL-66 and Celeron 1017U 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) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 1.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 1.6 GHz |
| Bus rate | 3600 MHz | 5 GT/s |
| L1 cache | 256 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | no data | 2 MB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | no data | 94 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 105 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon X2 QL-66 and Celeron 1017U 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.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | no data | 1 |
| Socket | S1g2 | FCBGA1023 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 17 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon X2 QL-66 and Celeron 1017U. 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 | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 |
| PowerNow | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| My WiFi | no data | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | + |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
| FDI | no data | + |
| Fast Memory Access | no data | + |
Security technologies
Athlon X2 QL-66 and Celeron 1017U technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Anti-Theft | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon X2 QL-66 and Celeron 1017U are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon X2 QL-66 and Celeron 1017U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 32 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 25.6 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel Processors |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1 GHz |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Athlon X2 QL-66 and Celeron 1017U integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
| eDP | no data | + |
| DisplayPort | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| SDVO | no data | + |
| CRT | no data | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon X2 QL-66 and Celeron 1017U.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
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.
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.
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.
Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.
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 | 0.40 | 0.95 |
| Recency | 1 September 2009 | 1 July 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 17 Watt |
Celeron 1017U has a 137.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 195.5% more advanced lithography process, and 105.9% lower power consumption.
The Celeron 1017U is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon X2 QL-66 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon X2 QL-66 and Celeron 1017U, 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.
