Celeron 2.80 vs Turion 64 MT-28

Celeron 2.80 vs Turion 64 MT-28 Performance Spectrum

Celeron 2.80

1 / 1

428

0.0%

445

+4.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

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 2.80 vs Turion 64 MT-28 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 2.80 vs Turion 64 MT-28: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 2.80

2003

Why buy it

✅Draws 73W instead of 512W, a 439W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (428 vs 445).
❌Launch MSRP is still $100 MSRP, while Turion 64 MT-28 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Turion 64 MT-28

2005

Why buy it

✅+4% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌601.4% higher power demand at 512W vs 73W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 2.80 better than Turion 64 MT-28?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron 2.80 is ahead with a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Turion 64 MT-28 pulls ahead with 4% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Turion 64 MT-28 is the stronger fit. You are getting 4% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Celeron 2.80 is the better buy right now. Celeron 2.80 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $100 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Turion 64 MT-28 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 4% better PassMark. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (4.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Turion 64 MT-28 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2005 vs 2003) and more multi-core headroom with 1 cores / 1 threads instead of 1/1. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron 2.80 vs Turion 64 MT-28 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 2.80

The Celeron 2.80 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Northwood (2002−2004) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 128 kB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 73 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 428 points. Launch price was $69.

Turion 64 MT-28

The Turion 64 MT-28 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Lancaster (2005−2006) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: 754. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB. Passmark benchmark score: 445 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 2.80 and Turion 64 MT-28 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.8 GHz on the Celeron 2.80 versus 1.6 GHz on the Turion 64 MT-28 — a 54.5% clock advantage for the Celeron 2.80. The Celeron 2.80 uses the Northwood (2002−2004) architecture (130 nm), while the Turion 64 MT-28 uses Lancaster (2005−2006) (90 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 2.80 scores 428 against the Turion 64 MT-28's 445 — a 3.9% lead for the Turion 64 MT-28. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron 2.80	Turion 64 MT-28
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2.8 GHz+75%	1.6 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	128 kB	512 kB+300%
Process	130 nm	90 nm-31%
Architecture	Northwood (2002−2004)	Lancaster (2005−2006)
PassMark	428	445+4%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 2.80 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Turion 64 MT-28 uses 754 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron 2.80	Turion 64 MT-28
Socket	PGA478	754
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 2.0+82%
Max RAM Speed	DDR1-400	—
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	—
RAM Channels	1	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	0	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: No (Celeron 2.80) / not specified (Turion 64 MT-28). Primary use case: Celeron 2.80 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 2.80 rivals Pentium 4 2.80.