Celeron M 530 vs Athlon 64 TF-20
Primary details
Comparing Athlon 64 TF-20 and Celeron M 530 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 Athlon 64 | Celeron M |
| Architecture codename | Sherman (2009) | Merom (2006−2008) |
| Release date | 1 May 2009 (15 years ago) | no data (2024 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Athlon 64 TF-20 and Celeron M 530 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 | 1.73 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 1.73 GHz |
| Bus rate | 667 MHz | 533 MHz |
| L1 cache | 0.1 MB | no data |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | no data |
| L3 cache | no data | 1 MB L2 Cache |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 65 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 95 °C | 100 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 0.95V-1.3V |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon 64 TF-20 and Celeron M 530 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 | S1g1 | PBGA479,PPGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 30 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 64 TF-20 and Celeron M 530. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX, 3DNow!, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, AMD64, Enhanced Virus Protection | 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 | - |
| FSB parity | no data | - |
Security technologies
Athlon 64 TF-20 and Celeron M 530 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 Athlon 64 TF-20 and Celeron M 530 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | 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.
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
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 30 Watt |
Athlon 64 TF-20 has 20% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Athlon 64 TF-20 and Celeron M 530. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 64 TF-20 and Celeron M 530, 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.
