Celeron N2830 vs Turion 64 X2 TL-60
Aggregate performance score
Turion 64 X2 TL-60 outperforms Celeron N2830 by a substantial 35% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Turion 64 X2 TL-60 and Celeron N2830 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2933 | 3069 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | 2x AMD Turion 64 | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 1.24 | 4.59 |
| Architecture codename | Trinidad/Tyler (2007) | Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) |
| Release date | 4 May 2007 (17 years ago) | 23 February 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $107 |
Detailed specifications
Turion 64 X2 TL-60 and Celeron N2830 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 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.16 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2 GHz | 2.41 GHz |
| Bus rate | 800 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 256 KB | 56K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | 147 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 95 °C | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 154 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Turion 64 X2 TL-60 and Celeron N2830 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 | S1 | FCBGA1170 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35/31 Watt | 7.5 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Turion 64 X2 TL-60 and Celeron N2830. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | 90/65 nm, 1.075 | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Smart Connect | no data | + |
| RST | no data | - |
Security technologies
Turion 64 X2 TL-60 and Celeron N2830 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| Anti-Theft | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Turion 64 X2 TL-60 and Celeron N2830 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Turion 64 X2 TL-60 and Celeron N2830. 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 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel HD Graphics for Intel Atom Processor Z3700 Series |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 750 MHz |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Turion 64 X2 TL-60 and Celeron N2830 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 2 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Turion 64 X2 TL-60 and Celeron N2830.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 4 |
| USB revision | no data | 3.0 and 2.0 |
| Total number of SATA ports | no data | 2 |
| Number of USB ports | no data | 5 |
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.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
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 | 0.46 | 0.34 |
| Recency | 4 May 2007 | 23 February 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 7 Watt |
Turion 64 X2 TL-60 has a 35.3% higher aggregate performance score.
Celeron N2830, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 309.1% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.
The Turion 64 X2 TL-60 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N2830 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Turion 64 X2 TL-60 and Celeron N2830, 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.
