Athlon X2 L310 vs Celeron 887

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron 887
2012
2 cores / 2 threads, 17 Watt
0.47
+124%
Athlon X2 L310
2009
2 cores / 2 threads, 13 Watt
0.21

Celeron 887 outperforms Athlon X2 L310 by a whopping 124% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron 887 and Athlon X2 L310 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking29053213
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel Celeron2x AMD Athlon
Power efficiency2.621.53
Architecture codenameSandy Bridge (2011−2013)Conesus (2009)
Release date1 September 2012 (12 years ago)10 September 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$86no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron 887 and Athlon X2 L310 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)2 (Dual-core)
Threads22
Base clock speed1.5 GHzno data
Boost clock speed1.5 GHz1.2 GHz
Bus typeDMI 2.0no data
Bus rate4 × 5 GT/s800 MHz
Multiplier15no data
L1 cache64K (per core)256 KB
L2 cache256K (per core)1 MB
L3 cache2 MB (shared)no data
Chip lithography32 nm65 nm
Die size131 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature100 °C95 °C
Number of transistors504 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron 887 and Athlon X2 L310 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)no data
SocketFCBGA1023BGA / 638 lidless micro-PGA
Power consumption (TDP)17 Watt13 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 887 and Athlon X2 L310. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2MMX, 3DNow, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, AMD64, Virtualization, Enhanced Virus Protection
FMA+-
VirusProtect-+
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

Celeron 887 and Athlon X2 L310 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 Celeron 887 and Athlon X2 L310 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d-no data
VT-x+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 887 and Athlon X2 L310. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3no data
Maximum memory size16 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth21.335 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel HD Graphics for 2nd Generation Intel Processorsno data
Graphics max frequency1 GHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron 887 and Athlon X2 L310 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported2no data
eDP+no data
DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-
SDVO+no data
CRT+no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 887 and Athlon X2 L310.

PCIe version2.0no data
PCI Express lanes16no 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.

Celeron 887 0.47
+124%
Athlon X2 L310 0.21

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.

Celeron 887 754
+129%
Athlon X2 L310 329

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Celeron 887 244
+110%
Athlon X2 L310 116

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Celeron 887 430
+116%
Athlon X2 L310 199

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.

Celeron 887 1877
+90.2%
Athlon X2 L310 987

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.

Celeron 887 3597
+106%
Athlon X2 L310 1747

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.

Celeron 887 1414
+63.3%
Athlon X2 L310 866

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.

Celeron 887 48
+117%
Athlon X2 L310 104.35

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.47 0.21
Recency 1 September 2012 10 September 2009
Chip lithography 32 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 17 Watt 13 Watt

Celeron 887 has a 123.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 103.1% more advanced lithography process.

Athlon X2 L310, on the other hand, has 30.8% lower power consumption.

The Celeron 887 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon X2 L310 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 887 and Athlon X2 L310, 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.


Intel Celeron 887
Celeron 887
AMD Athlon X2 L310
Athlon X2 L310

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.


2.5 17 votes

Rate Celeron 887 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.4 12 votes

Rate Athlon X2 L310 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron 887 or Athlon X2 L310, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.