Athlon 64 3000+ vs Celeron M 560
Aggregate performance score
Celeron M 560 outperforms Athlon 64 3000+ by an impressive 57% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 560 and Athlon 64 3000+ processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3080 | 3220 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Celeron M | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.05 | 0.22 |
| Architecture codename | Merom (2006−2008) | Clawhammer (2001−2005) |
| Release date | 1 May 2008 (16 years ago) | January 2001 (24 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $65 |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 560 and Athlon 64 3000+ 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) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 1 |
| Boost clock speed | 2.13 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 533 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 64 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 512K |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 130 nm |
| Die size | 143 mm2 | 193 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 291 Million | 154 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 560 and Athlon 64 3000+ 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 | 754 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 89 Watt |
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 | 0.33 | 0.21 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 89 Watt |
Celeron M 560 has a 57.1% higher aggregate performance score, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 196.7% lower power consumption.
The Celeron M 560 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon 64 3000+ in performance tests.
Be aware that Celeron M 560 is a notebook processor while Athlon 64 3000+ is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 560 and Athlon 64 3000+, 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.
