Turion X2 RM-74 vs Celeron M P4500
Aggregate performance score
Celeron M P4500 outperforms Turion X2 RM-74 by a substantial 35% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M P4500 and Turion X2 RM-74 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2793 | 2942 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron M | 2x AMD Turion |
| Power efficiency | 1.68 | 1.24 |
| Architecture codename | Arrandale (2010−2011) | Lion (2008−2009) |
| Release date | 1 April 2010 (14 years ago) | 1 January 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $86 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M P4500 and Turion X2 RM-74 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 2 |
| Boost clock speed | 1.86 GHz | 2.2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 2500 MHz | 3600 MHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 256 KB |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 2 MB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 65 nm |
| Die size | 81+114 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 90 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 382+177 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M P4500 and Turion X2 RM-74 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 | PGA988 | S1 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M P4500 and Turion X2 RM-74. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, Enhanced 3DNow!, NX bit, AMD64, PowerNow!, AMD Virtualization |
| PowerNow | - | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M P4500 and Turion X2 RM-74 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
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.
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 | 0.62 | 0.46 |
| Recency | 1 April 2010 | 1 January 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 65 nm |
Celeron M P4500 has a 34.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 103.1% more advanced lithography process.
The Celeron M P4500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Turion X2 RM-74 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M P4500 and Turion X2 RM-74, 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.
