Celeron M 370 vs Athlon 64 X2 3800+
Aggregate performance score
Athlon 64 X2 3800+ outperforms Celeron M 370 by a whopping 160% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Athlon 64 X2 3800+ and Celeron M 370 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3035 | 3338 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Celeron M |
| Power efficiency | 0.42 | 0.68 |
| Architecture codename | Manchester (2005−2006) | Dothan (2004−2005) |
| Release date | August 2005 (19 years ago) | no data |
Detailed specifications
Athlon 64 X2 3800+ and Celeron M 370 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 | 1.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2 GHz | 1.5 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 400 MHz |
| L1 cache | 256K | no data |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | no data |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 1 MB L2 Cache |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 90 nm |
| Die size | 220 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 154 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 1.004V-1.292V |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon 64 X2 3800+ and Celeron M 370 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 | 1 | no data |
| Socket | 939 | H-PBGA478,H-PBGA479,PPGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 89 Watt | 21 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 64 X2 3800+ and Celeron M 370. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| 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
Athlon 64 X2 3800+ and Celeron M 370 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 X2 3800+ and Celeron M 370 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | no data | - |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.39 | 0.15 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 1 |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 89 Watt | 21 Watt |
Athlon 64 X2 3800+ has a 160% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Celeron M 370, on the other hand, has 323.8% lower power consumption.
The Athlon 64 X2 3800+ is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M 370 in performance tests.
Note that Athlon 64 X2 3800+ is a desktop processor while Celeron M 370 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 64 X2 3800+ and Celeron M 370, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
