Celeron M 575 vs Phenom II X3 P820
Primary details
Comparing Phenom II X3 P820 and Celeron M 575 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2740 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | 3x AMD Phenom II | Intel Celeron M |
| Power efficiency | 2.50 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Champlain (2010−2011) | Merom (2006−2008) |
| Release date | 12 May 2010 (14 years ago) | 1 June 2008 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $86 |
Detailed specifications
Phenom II X3 P820 and Celeron M 575 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 |
| Boost clock speed | 1.8 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 3600 MHz | 667 MHz |
| L1 cache | 384 KB | no data |
| L2 cache | 1.5 MB | 1 MB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 65 nm |
| Die size | no data | 143 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 291 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Phenom II X3 P820 and Celeron M 575 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 | S1 | PPGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 31 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Phenom II X3 P820 and Celeron M 575. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Virtualization, AMD64, Advanced Virus Protection, SSE(1,2,3,4a) | no data |
| VirusProtect | + | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Phenom II X3 P820 and Celeron M 575 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Phenom II X3 P820 and Celeron M 575. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | no data |
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 12 May 2010 | 1 June 2008 |
| Physical cores | 3 | 1 |
| Threads | 3 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 31 Watt |
Phenom II X3 P820 has an age advantage of 1 year, 200% more physical cores and 200% more threads, a 44.4% more advanced lithography process, and 24% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Phenom II X3 P820 and Celeron M 575. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Phenom II X3 P820 and Celeron M 575, 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.
