Celeron 7305 vs 420
Aggregate performance score
Celeron 7305 outperforms Celeron 420 by a whopping 940% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron 420 and Celeron 7305 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3323 | 2123 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Power efficiency | 0.41 | 9.85 |
| Architecture codename | Conroe-L (2007−2008) | Alder Lake-U (2022) |
| Release date | June 2007 (17 years ago) | 23 February 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $23 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Celeron 420 and Celeron 7305 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 | 1 (Single-Core) | 5 (Penta-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 5 |
| Base clock speed | 1.6 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 1.1 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB | 80K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 1.25 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 8 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | Intel 7 nm |
| Die size | 77 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 60 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 105 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| VID voltage range | 1V-1.3375V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron 420 and Celeron 7305 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 | 1 |
| Socket | LGA775 | FCBGA1744 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 420 and Celeron 7305. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | - | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | - |
| TSX | - | + |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | + |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
Celeron 420 and Celeron 7305 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | + |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 420 and Celeron 7305 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | - | + |
| VT-x | - | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 420 and Celeron 7305. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200, LPDDR5-5200, LPDDR4x-4267 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel UHD Graphics for 12th Gen Intel Processors |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1.1 GHz |
| Execution Units | no data | 48 |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron 420 and Celeron 7305 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 4 |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Celeron 420 and Celeron 7305 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | no data | 4096 x 2304 @ 60Hz |
| Max resolution over eDP | no data | 4096 x 2304 @ 120Hz |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | no data | 7680 x 4320 @ 60Hz |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Celeron 420 and Celeron 7305 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 12.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 420 and Celeron 7305.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 20 |
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 | 0.15 | 1.56 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 5 |
| Threads | 1 | 5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 15 Watt |
Celeron 7305 has a 940% higher aggregate performance score, 400% more physical cores and 400% more threads, and 133.3% lower power consumption.
The Celeron 7305 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 420 in performance tests.
Note that Celeron 420 is a desktop processor while Celeron 7305 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 420 and Celeron 7305, 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.
