Athlon II Neo K125 vs Celeron M U3400
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M U3400 and Athlon II Neo K125 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron M | AMD Athlon II Neo |
| Architecture codename | Arrandale (2010−2011) | Geneva (2010) |
| Release date | 24 May 2010 (14 years ago) | 12 May 2010 (14 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M U3400 and Athlon II Neo K125 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Boost clock speed | 1.06 GHz | 1.7 GHz |
| Bus rate | 2500 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 2 MB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 81+114 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 382+177 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M U3400 and Athlon II Neo K125 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 | BGA1288 | S1 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 12 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M U3400 and Athlon II Neo K125. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | MMX, 3dDNow!, SSE4A, AMD64, Enhanced Virus Protection, Virtualization |
| VirusProtect | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Flex Memory Access | + | no data |
| Fast Memory Access | + | no data |
Security technologies
Celeron M U3400 and Athlon II Neo K125 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M U3400 and Athlon II Neo K125 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M U3400 and Athlon II Neo K125. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
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.
3DMark06 CPU
3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.
wPrime 32
wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 2 | 1 |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 12 Watt |
Celeron M U3400 has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 40.6% more advanced lithography process.
Athlon II Neo K125, on the other hand, has 50% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Celeron M U3400 and Athlon II Neo K125. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M U3400 and Athlon II Neo K125, 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.
