Athlon X2 QL-60 vs Celeron 1020M

Athlon X2 QL-60 vs Celeron 1020M Performance Spectrum

Athlon X2 QL-60

2 / 2

1,273

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron 1020M

2 / 2

1,275

+0.2%

Celeron N3000

Pentium T3400

Pentium Dual-Core E2200

About PassMark

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Athlon X2 QL-60 vs Celeron 1020M FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Athlon X2 QL-60 vs Celeron 1020M: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Athlon X2 QL-60

2008

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 512W, a 511W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,273 vs 1,275).
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 1020M can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Celeron 1020M

2013

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge), while Athlon X2 QL-60 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌51100% higher power demand at 512W vs 1W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 1020M better than Athlon X2 QL-60?

Yes. Celeron 1020M is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.2% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron 1020M is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.8% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 1020M is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Celeron 1020M still makes the most sense overall. Celeron 1020M comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Celeron 1020M makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2008) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Athlon X2 QL-60 vs Celeron 1020M Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Athlon X2 QL-60

The Athlon X2 QL-60 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Lion (2008−2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.9 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: S1. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,273 points. Launch price was $149.

Celeron 1020M

The Celeron 1020M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 January 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.1 GHz, with boost up to 2.1 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,275 points. Launch price was $86.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Athlon X2 QL-60 and Celeron 1020M share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.9 GHz on the Athlon X2 QL-60 versus 2.1 GHz on the Celeron 1020M — a 10% clock advantage for the Celeron 1020M. The Athlon X2 QL-60 uses the Lion (2008−2009) architecture (65 nm), while the Celeron 1020M uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon X2 QL-60 scores 1,273 against the Celeron 1020M's 1,275 — a 0.2% lead for the Celeron 1020M. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon X2 QL-60 vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 1020M.

Feature	Athlon X2 QL-60	Celeron 1020M
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.9 GHz	2.1 GHz+11%
Base Clock	—	2.1 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB	256K (per core)+25500%
Process	65 nm	22 nm-66%
Architecture	Lion (2008−2009)	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
PassMark	1,273	1,275

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon X2 QL-60 uses the S1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 1020M uses PGA988 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-667 on the Athlon X2 QL-60 versus DDR3-1600 on the Celeron 1020M — the Celeron 1020M supports 139.9% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 1020M supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Athlon X2 QL-60) vs 16 (Celeron 1020M) — the Celeron 1020M offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD S1 (Athlon X2 QL-60) and HM77,HM76,HM75 (Celeron 1020M).

Feature	Athlon X2 QL-60	Celeron 1020M
Socket	S1	PGA988
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-667	DDR3-1600+140%
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	32 GB+300%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Athlon X2 QL-60) / VT-x (Celeron 1020M). The Celeron 1020M includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)), while the Athlon X2 QL-60 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 1020M targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 1020M rivals Pentium 2020M.