Athlon II Neo K325 vs Celeron M 353
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 353 and Athlon II Neo K325 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Celeron M | AMD Athlon II Neo |
| Architecture codename | Dothan (2004−2005) | Geneva (2010) |
| Release date | no data | 12 May 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Current price | no data | $26 |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 353 and Athlon II Neo K325 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 | 1 (Single-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 1 | 2 |
| Boost clock speed | 0.9 GHz | 1.3 GHz |
| Bus support | 400 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 256 KB |
| L2 cache | no data | 1 MB |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 45 nm |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 353 and Athlon II Neo K325 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 | no data | S1 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 5 Watt | 12 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 353 and Athlon II Neo K325. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | DDR3 memory controller, SSE4A, AMD64, Enhanced Virus Protection, Virtualization, PowerNow, HyperTransport 3.0 |
| PowerNow | no data | + |
| VirusProtect | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M 353 and Athlon II Neo K325 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 353 and Athlon II Neo K325. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 20%
Athlon II Neo K325 outperforms Celeron M 353 by 163% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 1 | 2 |
| Threads | 1 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 5 Watt | 12 Watt |
We couldn't decide between Celeron M 353 and Athlon II Neo K325. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 353 and Athlon II Neo K325, 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.
