Celeron M 575 vs Athlon II X4 640
Aggregate performance score
Athlon II X4 640 outperforms Celeron M 575 by a whopping 461% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2425 | 3397 |
| 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 | Intel Celeron M |
| Power efficiency | 0.57 | 0.31 |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Architecture codename | Propus (2009−2011) | Merom (2006−2008) |
| Release date | 11 May 2010 (15 years ago) | 1 June 2008 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $80 | $86 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Athlon II X4 640 and Celeron M 575 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 | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 667 MHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 65 nm |
| Die size | 169 mm2 | 143 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 300 million | 291 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon II X4 640 and Celeron M 575 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 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 31 Watt |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon II X4 640 and Celeron M 575. 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 575.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.29 | 0.23 |
| Recency | 11 May 2010 | 1 June 2008 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 1 |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 31 Watt |
Athlon II X4 640 has a 460.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron M 575, on the other hand, has 206.5% lower power consumption.
The AMD Athlon II X4 640 is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Celeron M 575 in performance tests.
Note that Athlon II X4 640 is a desktop processor while Celeron M 575 is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
