Celeron M 360 vs Athlon II X4 640
Aggregate performance score
Athlon II X4 640 outperforms Celeron M 360 by a whopping 907% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Athlon II X4 640 and Celeron M 360 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2214 | 3334 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.92 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Celeron M |
| Power efficiency | 1.40 | 0.63 |
| Architecture codename | Propus (2009−2011) | Dothan (2004−2005) |
| Release date | 11 May 2010 (14 years ago) | no data |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $80 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Athlon II X4 640 and Celeron M 360 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 3 GHz | 1.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 1.4 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 400 MHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | no data |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 1 MB L2 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 90 nm |
| Die size | 169 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 300 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 1.26V, 1.004V-1.292V |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon II X4 640 and Celeron M 360 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 | AM3 | PPGA478, H-PBGA479 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 21 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon II X4 640 and Celeron M 360. 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 II X4 640 and Celeron M 360 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 II X4 640 and Celeron M 360 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | no data | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon II X4 640 and Celeron M 360. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon II X4 640 and Celeron M 360.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 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.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
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
| Performance score | 1.41 | 0.14 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 1 |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 21 Watt |
Athlon II X4 640 has a 907.1% higher aggregate performance score, 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron M 360, on the other hand, has 352.4% lower power consumption.
The Athlon II X4 640 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M 360 in performance tests.
Note that Athlon II X4 640 is a desktop processor while Celeron M 360 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon II X4 640 and Celeron M 360, 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.
