i3-370M vs Celeron M 560
Aggregate performance score
Core i3-370M outperforms Celeron M 560 by a whopping 115% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 560 and Core i3-370M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3063 | 2675 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron M | Intel Core i3 |
| Power efficiency | 1.07 | 1.97 |
| Architecture codename | Merom (2006−2008) | Arrandale (2010−2011) |
| Release date | 1 May 2008 (16 years ago) | 20 June 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $245 |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 560 and Core i3-370M 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 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.13 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 1.0 |
| Bus rate | 533 MHz | 1 × 2.5 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 18 |
| L1 cache | 64 KB | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 256K (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 3 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 143 mm2 | 81+114 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 90 °C for rPGA, 105 °C for BGA |
| Number of transistors | 291 Million | 382+177 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 560 and Core i3-370M 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 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | PPGA478 | PGA988 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 560 and Core i3-370M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 |
| FMA | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | + |
| PAE | no data | 36 Bit |
| FDI | no data | + |
| Fast Memory Access | no data | + |
Security technologies
Celeron M 560 and Core i3-370M 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 560 and Core i3-370M are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 560 and Core i3-370M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 8 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 17.051 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel HD Graphics for Previous Generation Intel Processors |
| Clear Video | no data | + |
| Clear Video HD | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 667 MHz |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron M 560 and Core i3-370M integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 2 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron M 560 and Core i3-370M.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.34 | 0.73 |
| Recency | 1 May 2008 | 20 June 2010 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 2 |
| Threads | 1 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 35 Watt |
Celeron M 560 has 16.7% lower power consumption.
i3-370M, on the other hand, has a 114.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 103.1% more advanced lithography process.
The Core i3-370M is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M 560 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 560 and Core i3-370M, 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.
