Celeron 3755U vs Turion 64 X2 TL-50

Celeron 3755U vs Turion 64 X2 TL-50 Performance Spectrum

Celeron 3755U

2 / 2

1,182

0.0%

1,184

+0.2%

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 3755U vs Turion 64 X2 TL-50 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 3755U vs Turion 64 X2 TL-50: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 3755U

2015

Why buy it

✅Draws 15W instead of 512W, a 497W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (12 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Broadwell), while Turion 64 X2 TL-50 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,182 vs 1,184).

Turion 64 X2 TL-50

2006

Why buy it

✅+0.2% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌3313.3% higher power demand at 512W vs 15W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 3755U can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 3755U better than Turion 64 X2 TL-50?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron 3755U is ahead with a 1.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Turion 64 X2 TL-50 pulls ahead with 0.2% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Turion 64 X2 TL-50 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 3755U still makes the most sense overall. Celeron 3755U comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Celeron 3755U makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 vs 2006). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron 3755U vs Turion 64 X2 TL-50 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 3755U

The Celeron 3755U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 March 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell-U (2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.7 GHz, with boost up to 1.7 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1168. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,182 points. Launch price was $107.

Turion 64 X2 TL-50

The Turion 64 X2 TL-50 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 17 May 2006 (19 years ago). It is based on the Taylor (2006) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.6 GHz. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: S1. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,184 points. Launch price was $154.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 3755U and Turion 64 X2 TL-50 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.7 GHz on the Celeron 3755U versus 1.6 GHz on the Turion 64 X2 TL-50 — a 6.1% clock advantage for the Celeron 3755U. The Celeron 3755U uses the Broadwell-U (2015) architecture (14 nm), while the Turion 64 X2 TL-50 uses Taylor (2006) (90 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 3755U scores 1,182 against the Turion 64 X2 TL-50's 1,184 — a 0.2% lead for the Turion 64 X2 TL-50.

Feature	Celeron 3755U	Turion 64 X2 TL-50
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.7 GHz+6%	1.6 GHz
Base Clock	1.7 GHz	—
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	—
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	512 kB+100%
Process	14 nm-84%	90 nm
Architecture	Broadwell-U (2015)	Taylor (2006)
PassMark	1,182	1,184
Geekbench 6 Multi	625	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 3755U uses the FCBGA1168 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Turion 64 X2 TL-50 uses S1 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron 3755U	Turion 64 X2 TL-50
Socket	FCBGA1168	S1
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1600	—
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	12	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Celeron 3755U) / not specified (Turion 64 X2 TL-50). The Celeron 3755U includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Broadwell)), while the Turion 64 X2 TL-50 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 3755U targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 3755U rivals Pentium 3825U.