Athlon 64 X2 4200+ vs Celeron M 320
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 320 and Athlon 64 X2 4200+ 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 | Desktop processor |
| Series | Celeron M | no data |
| Architecture codename | Banias (2003) | Manchester (2005−2006) |
| Release date | no data (2024 years ago) | December 2006 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $309 |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 320 and Athlon 64 X2 4200+ 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) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 1 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 1.3 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1.3 GHz | 2.2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 400 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 256K |
| L2 cache | no data | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 512 KB L2 Cache | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 90 nm |
| Die size | no data | 220 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 154 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 1.356V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 320 and Athlon 64 X2 4200+ 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 | no data | 1 |
| Socket | H-PBGA478,H-PBGA479,PPGA478 | 939 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 24.5 Watt | 89 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 320 and Athlon 64 X2 4200+. 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 | 32 Bit | no data |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
Security technologies
Celeron M 320 and Athlon 64 X2 4200+ 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 Celeron M 320 and Athlon 64 X2 4200+ are enumerated here.
| VT-x | - | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 1 | 2 |
| Threads | 1 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 24 Watt | 89 Watt |
Celeron M 320 has 270.8% lower power consumption.
Athlon 64 X2 4200+, on the other hand, has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Celeron M 320 and Athlon 64 X2 4200+. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Celeron M 320 is a notebook processor while Athlon 64 X2 4200+ is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 320 and Athlon 64 X2 4200+, 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.
