Phenom X4 9750B vs Celeron M 320
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 320 and Phenom X4 9750B processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 2494 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Celeron M | no data |
| Power efficiency | no data | 0.96 |
| Architecture codename | Banias (2003) | Agena (2007−2008) |
| Release date | no data (2024 years ago) | August 2008 (16 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 320 and Phenom X4 9750B 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) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 1.3 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1.3 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Bus rate | 400 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 512 KB L2 Cache | 2 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 65 nm |
| Die size | no data | 285 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 450 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 1.356V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 320 and Phenom X4 9750B 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 | AM2+ |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 24.5 Watt | 95 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 320 and Phenom X4 9750B. 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 Phenom X4 9750B 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 Phenom X4 9750B are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-x | - | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 1 | 4 |
| Threads | 1 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 24 Watt | 95 Watt |
Celeron M 320 has 295.8% lower power consumption.
Phenom X4 9750B, on the other hand, has 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Celeron M 320 and Phenom X4 9750B. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Celeron M 320 is a notebook processor while Phenom X4 9750B is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 320 and Phenom X4 9750B, 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.
