Ultra 5 236V vs Celeron M 560
Aggregate performance score
Core Ultra 5 236V outperforms Celeron M 560 by a whopping 3882% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 560 and Core Ultra 5 236V processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3074 | 555 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron M | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.07 | 74.98 |
| Architecture codename | Merom (2006−2008) | Lunar Lake (2024) |
| Release date | 1 May 2008 (16 years ago) | 24 September 2024 (less than a year ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 560 and Core Ultra 5 236V 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 | no data | 2.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.13 GHz | 4.7 GHz |
| Bus rate | 533 MHz | 37 MHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB | 192 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 2.5 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 8 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 3 nm |
| Die size | 143 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 291 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 560 and Core Ultra 5 236V 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 | Intel BGA 2833 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 17 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 560 and Core Ultra 5 236V. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
Security technologies
Celeron M 560 and Core Ultra 5 236V technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M 560 and Core Ultra 5 236V are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 560 and Core Ultra 5 236V. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR5 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Arc 130V |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron M 560 and Core Ultra 5 236V.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 4 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.34 | 13.54 |
| Recency | 1 May 2008 | 24 September 2024 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 8 |
| Threads | 1 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 3 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 17 Watt |
Ultra 5 236V has a 3882.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 16 years, 700% more physical cores and 700% more threads, a 2066.7% more advanced lithography process, and 76.5% lower power consumption.
The Core Ultra 5 236V 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 Core Ultra 5 236V, 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.
