Celeron M 320 vs Turion II Neo K685
Primary details
Comparing Turion II Neo K685 and Celeron M 320 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 | AMD Turion II Neo | Celeron M |
| Architecture codename | Geneva (2010) | Banias (2003) |
| Release date | 15 December 2010 (13 years ago) | no data (2024 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Turion II Neo K685 and Celeron M 320 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 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 1.3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.8 GHz | 1.3 GHz |
| Bus rate | 3200 MHz | 400 MHz |
| L1 cache | 256 KB | no data |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | no data |
| L3 cache | no data | 512 KB L2 Cache |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 130 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 1.356V |
Compatibility
Information on Turion II Neo K685 and Celeron M 320 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 | S1g4 | H-PBGA478,H-PBGA479,PPGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 24.5 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Turion II Neo K685 and Celeron M 320. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX, 3DNow, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4A, AMD64, Enhanced Virus Protection, Virtualization | no data |
| VirusProtect | + | - |
| 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
Turion II Neo K685 and Celeron M 320 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 Turion II Neo K685 and Celeron M 320 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-x | no data | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Turion II Neo K685 and Celeron M 320. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 2 | 1 |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 24 Watt |
Turion II Neo K685 has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 188.9% more advanced lithography process, and 60% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Turion II Neo K685 and Celeron M 320. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Turion II Neo K685 and Celeron M 320, 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.
