Athlon II M320 vs Celeron M 560
Aggregate performance score
Athlon II M320 outperforms Celeron M 560 by a considerable 42% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 560 and Athlon II M320 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3080 | 2927 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron M | AMD Athlon II |
| Power efficiency | 1.05 | 1.28 |
| Architecture codename | Merom (2006−2008) | Caspian (2009) |
| Release date | 1 May 2008 (16 years ago) | 10 September 2009 (15 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 560 and Athlon II M320 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 | 2.13 GHz | 2.1 GHz |
| Bus rate | 533 MHz | 3200 MHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 143 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 291 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 560 and Athlon II M320 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 | Socket S1 (S1g3) |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 560 and Athlon II M320. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, Enhanced 3DNow!, NX bit, AMD64, PowerNow!, AMD Virtualization |
| PowerNow | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 560 and Athlon II M320. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR2 |
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.33 | 0.47 |
| Recency | 1 May 2008 | 10 September 2009 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 2 |
| Threads | 1 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 35 Watt |
Celeron M 560 has 16.7% lower power consumption.
Athlon II M320, on the other hand, has a 42.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.
The Athlon II M320 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M 560 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 560 and Athlon II M320, 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.
