Celeron M 520 vs Athlon 64 X2 4200+
Primary details
Comparing Athlon 64 X2 4200+ and Celeron M 520 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 | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Celeron M |
| Architecture codename | Manchester (2005−2006) | Merom (2006−2008) |
| Release date | December 2006 (17 years ago) | no data (2024 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $309 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Athlon 64 X2 4200+ and Celeron M 520 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 | 1.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 1.6 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 533 MHz |
| L1 cache | 256K | no data |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | no data |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 1 MB L2 Cache |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 65 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 | 0.95V-1.3V |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon 64 X2 4200+ and Celeron M 520 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 | PPGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 89 Watt | 30 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 64 X2 4200+ and Celeron M 520. 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 | - |
| FSB parity | no data | - |
Security technologies
Athlon 64 X2 4200+ and Celeron M 520 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 4200+ and Celeron M 520 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.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 2 | 1 |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 89 Watt | 30 Watt |
Athlon 64 X2 4200+ has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Celeron M 520, on the other hand, has a 38.5% more advanced lithography process, and 196.7% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Athlon 64 X2 4200+ and Celeron M 520. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Athlon 64 X2 4200+ is a desktop processor while Celeron M 520 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 64 X2 4200+ and Celeron M 520, 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.
