Athlon II Neo K345 vs Celeron M 560

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron M 560
2008
1 core / 1 thread, 30 Watt
0.34
+3%
Athlon II Neo K345
2010
2 cores / 2 threads, 12 Watt
0.33

Celeron M 560 outperforms Athlon II Neo K345 by a minimal 3% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron M 560 and Athlon II Neo K345 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking30783087
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel Celeron MAMD Athlon II Neo
Power efficiency1.072.60
Architecture codenameMerom (2006−2008)Champlain (2010−2011)
Release date1 May 2008 (16 years ago)18 December 2010 (14 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Celeron M 560 and Athlon II Neo K345 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 cores1 (Single-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads12
Boost clock speed2.13 GHz1.4 GHz
Bus rate533 MHz2000 MHz
L1 cache64 KB256 KB
L2 cache1 MB1 MB
Chip lithography65 nm45 nm
Die size143 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
Number of transistors291 Millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron M 560 and Athlon II Neo K345 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.

SocketPPGA478S1
Power consumption (TDP)30 Watt12 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 560 and Athlon II Neo K345. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataSSE4A, AMD64, Enhanced Virus Protection, Virtualization, PowerNow, HyperTransport 3.0
PowerNow-+
VirusProtect-+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M 560 and Athlon II Neo K345 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 560 and Athlon II Neo K345. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR3

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.

Celeron M 560 0.34
+3%
Athlon II Neo K345 0.33

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.

Celeron M 560 535
+1.5%
Athlon II Neo K345 527

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

Celeron M 560 2008
+68.6%
Athlon II Neo K345 1191

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

Celeron M 560 2008
Athlon II Neo K345 2395
+19.3%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.34 0.33
Recency 1 May 2008 18 December 2010
Physical cores 1 2
Threads 1 2
Chip lithography 65 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 30 Watt 12 Watt

Celeron M 560 has a 3% higher aggregate performance score.

Athlon II Neo K345, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 44.4% more advanced lithography process, and 150% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Celeron M 560 and Athlon II Neo K345.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 560 and Athlon II Neo K345, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Celeron M 560
Celeron M 560
AMD Athlon II Neo K345
Athlon II Neo K345

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


2.7 43 votes

Rate Celeron M 560 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate Athlon II Neo K345 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron M 560 or Athlon II Neo K345, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.