Celeron 1017U vs Turion X2 Ultra ZM-80

Celeron 1017U vs Turion X2 Ultra ZM-80 Performance Spectrum

Celeron 1017U

2 / 2

1,508

+0.3%

Turion X2 Ultra ZM-80

2 / 2

1,503

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

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.

Celeron 1017U vs Turion X2 Ultra ZM-80 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.

Celeron 1017U vs Turion X2 Ultra ZM-80: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 1017U

2013

Why buy it

✅+0.3% higher PassMark.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge), while Turion X2 Ultra ZM-80 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌25500% higher power demand at 512W vs 2W.

Turion X2 Ultra ZM-80

2008

Why buy it

✅Draws 2W instead of 512W, a 510W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,503 vs 1,508).
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 1017U can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 1017U better than Turion X2 Ultra ZM-80?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Turion X2 Ultra ZM-80 is ahead with a 0.5% average FPS lead across 11 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 1017U pulls ahead with 0.3% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 1017U is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron 1017U still makes the most sense overall. Celeron 1017U comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.3% better PassMark.

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

Celeron 1017U 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.

Celeron 1017U vs Turion X2 Ultra ZM-80 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 1017U

The Celeron 1017U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1023. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,508 points. Launch price was $69.

Turion X2 Ultra ZM-80

The Turion X2 Ultra ZM-80 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Puma (2008−2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2.1 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: S1g2. Thermal design power (TDP): 2 MB. Memory support: DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 1,503 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 1017U and Turion X2 Ultra ZM-80 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.6 GHz on the Celeron 1017U versus 2.1 GHz on the Turion X2 Ultra ZM-80 — a 27% clock advantage for the Turion X2 Ultra ZM-80. The Celeron 1017U uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Turion X2 Ultra ZM-80 uses Puma (2008−2009) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 1017U scores 1,508 against the Turion X2 Ultra ZM-80's 1,503 — a 0.3% lead for the Celeron 1017U. L3 cache: 2 MB on the Celeron 1017U vs 0 kB on the Turion X2 Ultra ZM-80.

Feature	Celeron 1017U	Turion X2 Ultra ZM-80
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.6 GHz	2.1 GHz+31%
Base Clock	1.6 GHz	—
L3 Cache	2 MB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB	2 MB+300%
Process	22 nm-66%	65 nm
Architecture	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)	Puma (2008−2009)
PassMark	1,508	1,503

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 1017U uses the BGA1023 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Turion X2 Ultra ZM-80 uses S1g2 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.