Turion 64 X2 TL-56 vs Celeron M U3400

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron M U3400
2010
2 cores / 2 threads, 18 Watt
0.29
Turion 64 X2 TL-56
2007
2 cores / 2 threads, 33 Watt
0.40
+37.9%

Turion 64 X2 TL-56 outperforms Celeron M U3400 by a substantial 38% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron M U3400 and Turion 64 X2 TL-56 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking31213012
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel Celeron M2x AMD Turion 64
Power efficiency1.521.15
Architecture codenameArrandale (2010−2011)Trinidad / Tyler (2007)
Release date24 May 2010 (14 years ago)4 May 2007 (17 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Celeron M U3400 and Turion 64 X2 TL-56 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 cores2 (Dual-core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads22
Boost clock speed1.06 GHz1.8 GHz
Bus rate2500 MHz800 MHz
L2 cache512 KB1 MB
L3 cache2 MBno data
Chip lithography32 nm90/65 nm
Die size81+114 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature105 °Cno data
Number of transistors382+177 Millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron M U3400 and Turion 64 X2 TL-56 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.

SocketBGA1288S1
Power consumption (TDP)18 Watt33/31 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M U3400 and Turion 64 X2 TL-56. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access+no data
Fast Memory Access+no data

Security technologies

Celeron M U3400 and Turion 64 X2 TL-56 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M U3400 and Turion 64 X2 TL-56 are enumerated here.

VT-x+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M U3400 and Turion 64 X2 TL-56. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3no data

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 U3400 0.29
Turion 64 X2 TL-56 0.40
+37.9%

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 U3400 2317
Turion 64 X2 TL-56 2835
+22.4%

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

Celeron M U3400 988
Turion 64 X2 TL-56 1340
+35.6%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.29 0.40
Recency 24 May 2010 4 May 2007
Chip lithography 32 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 18 Watt 33 Watt

Celeron M U3400 has an age advantage of 3 years, a 181.3% more advanced lithography process, and 83.3% lower power consumption.

Turion 64 X2 TL-56, on the other hand, has a 37.9% higher aggregate performance score.

The Turion 64 X2 TL-56 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M U3400 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M U3400 and Turion 64 X2 TL-56, 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 U3400
Celeron M U3400
AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-56
Turion 64 X2 TL-56

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.


2.8 4 votes

Rate Celeron M U3400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 17 votes

Rate Turion 64 X2 TL-56 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron M U3400 or Turion 64 X2 TL-56, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.