Athlon 64 X2 4000+ vs Celeron M 340
Aggregate performance score
Athlon 64 X2 4000+ outperforms Celeron M 340 by a whopping 208% 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 | 3597 | 3231 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Celeron M | no data |
| Power efficiency | 0.26 | 0.19 |
| Designer | Intel | AMD |
| Architecture codename | Banias (2003) | Windsor (2006−2007) |
| Release date | no data | May 2006 (19 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 340 and Athlon 64 X2 4000+ 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 | 1.5 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1.5 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 400 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 256 KB |
| L2 cache | no data | 512K |
| L3 cache | 512 KB L2 | 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 340 and Athlon 64 X2 4000+ 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 | PPGA478 | AM2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 24.5 Watt | 89 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 340 and Athlon 64 X2 4000+. 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 340 and Athlon 64 X2 4000+ 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 340 and Athlon 64 X2 4000+ are enumerated here.
| VT-x | - | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.13 | 0.40 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 2 |
| Threads | 1 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 24 Watt | 89 Watt |
Celeron M 340 has 270.8% lower power consumption.
Athlon 64 X2 4000+, on the other hand, has a 207.7% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.
The AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+ is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Celeron M 340 in performance tests.
Be aware that Celeron M 340 is a notebook processor while Athlon 64 X2 4000+ is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
