Celeron M 520 vs Athlon X4 950
Primary details
Comparing Athlon X4 950 and Celeron M 520 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1814 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.66 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Celeron M |
| Power efficiency | 3.29 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) | Merom (2006−2008) |
| Release date | 27 July 2017 (7 years ago) | no data (2024 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $60 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Athlon X4 950 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 1.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 1.6 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 533 MHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | no data |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 1 MB L2 Cache |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Die size | 246 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 74 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 0.95V-1.3V |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon X4 950 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.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | no data |
| Socket | AM4 | PPGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 30 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon X4 950 and Celeron M 520. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| 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 X4 950 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 X4 950 and Celeron M 520 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-x | no data | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon X4 950 and Celeron M 520. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Dual-channel | 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 | 4 | 1 |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 30 Watt |
Athlon X4 950 has 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron M 520, on the other hand, has 116.7% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Athlon X4 950 and Celeron M 520. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Athlon X4 950 is a desktop processor while Celeron M 520 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon X4 950 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.
