Pentium M 750 vs Phenom II X3 N870
Primary details
Comparing Phenom II X3 N870 and Pentium M 750 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2418 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | 3x AMD Phenom II | Pentium M |
| Power efficiency | 2.87 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Champlain (2010−2011) | Dothan (2004−2005) |
| Release date | 16 December 2010 (13 years ago) | 19 January 2005 (19 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Phenom II X3 N870 and Pentium M 750 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 | 3 (Tri-Core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 3 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 1.86 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.3 GHz | 1.86 GHz |
| Bus rate | 3600 MHz | 533 MHz |
| L1 cache | 384 KB | 32 KB |
| L2 cache | 1.5 MB | 2 MB |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 90 nm |
| Die size | no data | 87 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 144 million |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 1.26V-1.356V |
Compatibility
Information on Phenom II X3 N870 and Pentium M 750 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 | S1 (S1g4) | PPGA478, H-PBGA479 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 27 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Phenom II X3 N870 and Pentium M 750. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | 86x MMX(+), 3DNow!(+), SSE(1,2,3,4A),-64, AMD-V | no data |
| 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
Phenom II X3 N870 and Pentium M 750 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 Phenom II X3 N870 and Pentium M 750 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-x | no data | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Phenom II X3 N870 and Pentium M 750. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR2 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 16 December 2010 | 19 January 2005 |
| Physical cores | 3 | 1 |
| Threads | 3 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 27 Watt |
Phenom II X3 N870 has an age advantage of 5 years, 200% more physical cores and 200% more threads, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
Pentium M 750, on the other hand, has 29.6% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Phenom II X3 N870 and Pentium M 750. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Phenom II X3 N870 and Pentium M 750, 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.
