Athlon 64 X2 3600+ vs Celeron M 420
Aggregate performance score
Athlon 64 X2 3600+ outperforms Celeron M 420 by a whopping 344% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 420 and Athlon 64 X2 3600+ processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3407 | 3022 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Celeron M | no data |
| Power efficiency | 0.32 | 0.43 |
| Architecture codename | Yonah (2005−2006) | Manchester (2005−2006) |
| Release date | no data | 31 May 2005 (19 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 420 and Athlon 64 X2 3600+ 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 |
| Base clock speed | 1.6 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 533 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 1 MB L2 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 90 nm |
| Die size | no data | 156 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 154 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 1.0V-1.3V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 420 and Athlon 64 X2 3600+ 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 | PPGA478 | 939 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 27 Watt | 89 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 420 and Athlon 64 X2 3600+. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| 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
Celeron M 420 and Athlon 64 X2 3600+ 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 Celeron M 420 and Athlon 64 X2 3600+ are enumerated here.
| VT-x | - | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 420 and Athlon 64 X2 3600+. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR1 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.09 | 0.40 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 2 |
| Threads | 1 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 27 Watt | 89 Watt |
Celeron M 420 has a 38.5% more advanced lithography process, and 229.6% lower power consumption.
Athlon 64 X2 3600+, on the other hand, has a 344.4% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
The Athlon 64 X2 3600+ is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M 420 in performance tests.
Be aware that Celeron M 420 is a notebook processor while Athlon 64 X2 3600+ is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 420 and Athlon 64 X2 3600+, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
