Celeron 430 vs Turion 64 ML-30

Celeron 430 vs Turion 64 ML-30 Performance Spectrum

Celeron 430

1 / 1

448

0.0%

Atom 230

Pentium 4 2.26

Pentium M 1.40

Mobile Pentium 4 2.66

475

+6.0%

Athlon XP 2100+

Athlon XP 2400+

Athlon XP 2700+

Mobile Athlon 64 2800+

Ryzen 5 8640HS

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 430 vs Turion 64 ML-30 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 430 vs Turion 64 ML-30: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 430

2007

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Turion 64 ML-30 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (448 vs 475).
❌Launch MSRP is still $49 MSRP, while Turion 64 ML-30 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌3400% higher power demand at 35W vs 1W.

Turion 64 ML-30

2005

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +8.9% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 1W instead of 35W, a 34W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Quick Answers

So, is Turion 64 ML-30 better than Celeron 430?

Yes. Turion 64 ML-30 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 8.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 6% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Turion 64 ML-30 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 8.9% 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, Turion 64 ML-30 is the stronger fit. You are getting 6% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Turion 64 ML-30 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Turion 64 ML-30 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $49 MSRP, and it still gives you a 8.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron 430 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2007 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (9.1 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on LGA775.

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

Celeron 430 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2007 vs 2005). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron 430 vs Turion 64 ML-30 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 430

The Celeron 430 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 June 2007 (18 years ago). It is based on the Conroe-L (2007−2008) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Base frequency is 1.8 GHz, with boost up to 1.8 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 448 points. Launch price was $50.

Turion 64 ML-30

The Turion 64 ML-30 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: 1 MB. Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: 754. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 475 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 430 and Turion 64 ML-30 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.8 GHz on the Celeron 430 versus 1.6 GHz on the Turion 64 ML-30 — a 11.8% clock advantage for the Celeron 430. The Celeron 430 uses the Conroe-L (2007−2008) architecture (65 nm), while the Turion 64 ML-30 uses Lancaster (2005−2006) (90 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 430 scores 448 against the Turion 64 ML-30's 475 — a 5.9% lead for the Turion 64 ML-30. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron 430	Turion 64 ML-30
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1.8 GHz+12%	1.6 GHz
Base Clock	1.8 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB	1 MB+100%
Process	65 nm-28%	90 nm
Architecture	Conroe-L (2007−2008)	Lancaster (2005−2006)
PassMark	448	475+6%
Geekbench 6 Single	226	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 430 uses the LGA775 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Turion 64 ML-30 uses 754 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron 430	Turion 64 ML-30
Socket	LGA775	754
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 2.0+82%
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-800	—
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	0	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: No (Celeron 430) / not specified (Turion 64 ML-30). Primary use case: Celeron 430 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 430 rivals Pentium 4 2.80.