Microsoft SQ1 vs Celeron M 520
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 520 and Microsoft SQ1 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 1481 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Celeron M | Qualcomm Snapdragon |
| Power efficiency | no data | 0.12 |
| Architecture codename | Merom (2006−2008) | Cortex-A76 / A55 (Kryo 495) (2019) |
| Release date | no data (2024 years ago) | 2 October 2019 (5 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 520 and Microsoft SQ1 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) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 1.6 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 3 GHz |
| Bus rate | 533 MHz | no data |
| L3 cache | 1 MB L2 Cache | 2 MB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 7 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 0.95V-1.3V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 520 and Microsoft SQ1 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 | PPGA478 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 3000 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 520 and Microsoft SQ1. 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 520 and Microsoft SQ1 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 520 and Microsoft SQ1 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | - | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Qualcomm Adreno 685 |
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 | 1 | 8 |
| Threads | 1 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 3000 Watt |
Celeron M 520 has 9900% lower power consumption.
Microsoft SQ1, on the other hand, has 700% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 828.6% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Celeron M 520 and Microsoft SQ1. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 520 and Microsoft SQ1, 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.
