Athlon II N370 vs Celeron M 360
Aggregate performance score
Athlon II N370 outperforms Celeron M 360 by a whopping 307% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 360 and Athlon II N370 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3335 | 2835 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Celeron M | AMD Athlon II |
| Power efficiency | 0.63 | 1.54 |
| Architecture codename | Dothan (2004−2005) | Champlain (2010−2011) |
| Release date | no data | 16 December 2010 (14 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 360 and Athlon II N370 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 | 1.4 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1.4 GHz | 2.5 GHz |
| Bus rate | 400 MHz | 3200 MHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 256 KB |
| L2 cache | no data | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 1 MB L2 KB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | no data | 117.5 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 234 Million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 1.26V, 1.004V-1.292V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 360 and Athlon II N370 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.
| Socket | PPGA478, H-PBGA479 | S1 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 21 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 360 and Athlon II N370. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | MMX, 3DNow!, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, AMD64, Enhanced Virus Protection, Virtualization |
| VirusProtect | - | + |
| 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 360 and Athlon II N370 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 360 and Athlon II N370 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-x | - | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 360 and Athlon II N370. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 |
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 | 0.14 | 0.57 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 2 |
| Threads | 1 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 21 Watt | 35 Watt |
Celeron M 360 has 66.7% lower power consumption.
Athlon II N370, on the other hand, has a 307.1% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The Athlon II N370 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M 360 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 360 and Athlon II N370, 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.
