Opteron 3380 vs Celeron M 370
Aggregate performance score
Opteron 3380 outperforms Celeron M 370 by a whopping 1713% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 370 and Opteron 3380 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3374 | 1757 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | Celeron M | no data |
| Power efficiency | 0.68 | 3.99 |
| Architecture codename | Dothan (2004−2005) | Delhi (2012−2013) |
| Release date | no data | 4 December 2012 (12 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 370 and Opteron 3380 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) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 1.5 GHz | 2.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.5 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| Bus rate | 400 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 384 KB |
| L2 cache | no data | 8192 KB |
| L3 cache | 1 MB L2 Cache | 8192 KB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | no data | 315 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,200 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 1.004V-1.292V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 370 and Opteron 3380 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 | AM3+ |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 21 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 370 and Opteron 3380. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| FMA | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| 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 Opteron 3380 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 Opteron 3380 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-x | - | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 370 and Opteron 3380. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron M 370 and Opteron 3380.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.15 | 2.72 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 8 |
| Threads | 1 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 21 Watt | 65 Watt |
Celeron M 370 has 209.5% lower power consumption.
Opteron 3380, on the other hand, has a 1713.3% higher aggregate performance score, 700% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 181.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Opteron 3380 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 Opteron 3380 is a server/workstation one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
