Pentium M 780 vs Celeron M 560
Aggregate performance score
Celeron M 560 outperforms Pentium M 780 by a considerable 42% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 560 and Pentium M 780 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3078 | 3183 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron M | Pentium M |
| Power efficiency | 1.07 | 0.84 |
| Architecture codename | Merom (2006−2008) | Dothan (2004−2005) |
| Release date | 1 May 2008 (16 years ago) | 25 July 2005 (19 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 560 and Pentium M 780 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 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.26 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.13 GHz | 0.03 GHz |
| Bus rate | 533 MHz | 533 MHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB | 32 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 2 MB |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 90 nm |
| Die size | 143 mm2 | 87 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 291 Million | 144 million |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 1.26V-1.404V |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 560 and Pentium M 780 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 | PPGA478, H-PBGA479 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 27 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 560 and Pentium M 780. 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 | - |
| PAE | no data | 32 Bit |
| FSB parity | no data | - |
Security technologies
Celeron M 560 and Pentium M 780 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 560 and Pentium M 780 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | no data | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 560 and Pentium M 780. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR2 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.34 | 0.24 |
| Recency | 1 May 2008 | 25 July 2005 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 27 Watt |
Celeron M 560 has a 41.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 38.5% more advanced lithography process.
Pentium M 780, on the other hand, has 11.1% lower power consumption.
The Celeron M 560 is our recommended choice as it beats the Pentium M 780 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 560 and Pentium M 780, 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.
