Athlon 64 3000+ vs Celeron M 370
Aggregate performance score
Athlon 64 3000+ outperforms Celeron M 370 by a considerable 40% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 370 and Athlon 64 3000+ processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3300 | 3208 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Celeron M | no data |
| Power efficiency | 0.68 | 0.22 |
| Architecture codename | Dothan (2004−2005) | Clawhammer (2001−2005) |
| Release date | no data (2024 years ago) | January 2001 (23 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $65 |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 370 and Athlon 64 3000+ 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) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 1 |
| 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 | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | no data | 512K |
| L3 cache | 1 MB L2 Cache | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 130 nm |
| Die size | no data | 193 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 154 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 1.004V-1.292V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 370 and Athlon 64 3000+ 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 | 754 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 21 Watt | 89 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 370 and Athlon 64 3000+. 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 370 and Athlon 64 3000+ 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 370 and Athlon 64 3000+ are enumerated here.
| VT-x | - | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.15 | 0.21 |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 21 Watt | 89 Watt |
Celeron M 370 has a 44.4% more advanced lithography process, and 323.8% lower power consumption.
Athlon 64 3000+, on the other hand, has a 40% higher aggregate performance score.
The Athlon 64 3000+ is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M 370 in performance tests.
Be aware that Celeron M 370 is a notebook processor while Athlon 64 3000+ is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 370 and Athlon 64 3000+, 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.
