Celeron M 925 vs Athlon II P320
Primary details
Comparing Athlon II P320 and Celeron M 925 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 II | Intel Celeron M |
| Architecture codename | Champlain (2010−2011) | Penryn (2008−2011) |
| Release date | 12 May 2010 (14 years ago) | 1 January 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $70 |
Detailed specifications
Athlon II P320 and Celeron M 925 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 |
| Boost clock speed | 2.1 GHz | 2.3 GHz |
| Bus rate | 3200 MHz | 800 MHz |
| L1 cache | 256 KB | no data |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | no data | 107 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 410 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon II P320 and Celeron M 925 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 | PGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon II P320 and Celeron M 925. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | SSE-3, SSE4A, 3DNow!, MMX, DEP, SVM | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 12 May 2010 | 1 January 2011 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 1 |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 35 Watt |
Athlon II P320 has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and 40% lower power consumption.
Celeron M 925, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 months.
We couldn't decide between Athlon II P320 and Celeron M 925. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon II P320 and Celeron M 925, 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.
