Celeron M 530 vs Mobile Athlon 64 3400+
Primary details
Comparing Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ and Celeron M 530 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Mobile Athlon 64 | Celeron M |
| Architecture codename | Clawhammer (2001−2005) | Merom (2006−2008) |
| Release date | August 2005 (18 years ago) | no data |
| Current price | $30 | $219 |
Detailed specifications
Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ and Celeron M 530 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) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 1.73 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 1.73 GHz |
| Bus support | 800 MHz | 533 MHz |
| L1 cache | 128K | no data |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | no data |
| L3 cache | no data | 1 MB L2 Cache |
| Chip lithography | no data | 65 nm |
| Die size | 193 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 106 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
| VID voltage range | no data | 0.95V-1.3V |
Compatibility
Information on Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ and Celeron M 530 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 | 1 | no data |
| Socket | 754 | PBGA479,PPGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 62 Watt | 30 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ and Celeron M 530. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | - |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
| FSB parity | no data | - |
| Status | no data | Discontinued |
Security technologies
Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ and Celeron M 530 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 Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ and Celeron M 530 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | no data | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ and Celeron M 530. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1 | no 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.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ outperforms Celeron M 530 by 10% in Passmark.
Pros & cons summary
| Power consumption (TDP) | 62 Watt | 30 Watt |
We couldn't decide between Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ and Celeron M 530. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ and Celeron M 530, 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.
