Celeron 450 vs Turion 64 MT-32

Celeron 450 vs Turion 64 MT-32 Performance Spectrum

Celeron 450

1 / 1

495

0.0%

505

+2.0%

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 450 vs Turion 64 MT-32 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 450 vs Turion 64 MT-32: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 450

2008

Why buy it

✅Draws 35W instead of 512W, a 477W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Turion 64 MT-32 across 49 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (495 vs 505).
❌Launch MSRP is still $53 MSRP, while Turion 64 MT-32 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Turion 64 MT-32

2005

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +8.2% higher average FPS across 49 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌1362.9% higher power demand at 512W vs 35W.

Quick Answers

So, is Turion 64 MT-32 better than Celeron 450?

Yes. Turion 64 MT-32 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 8.2% average FPS lead across 49 shared CPU game tests in our data and 2% 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 MT-32 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 8.2% more average FPS across 49 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Turion 64 MT-32 is the stronger fit. You are getting 2% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Turion 64 MT-32 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Turion 64 MT-32 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $53 MSRP, and it still gives you a 8.2% average FPS lead across 49 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron 450 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2008 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (9.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 450 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2008 vs 2005). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron 450 vs Turion 64 MT-32 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 450

The Celeron 450 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 31 August 2008 (17 years ago). It is based on the Conroe-L (2007−2008) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 2.2 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: 495 points. Launch price was $53.

Turion 64 MT-32

The Turion 64 MT-32 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: 1.79 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: 505 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 450 and Turion 64 MT-32 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.2 GHz on the Celeron 450 versus 1.79 GHz on the Turion 64 MT-32 — a 20.6% clock advantage for the Celeron 450. The Celeron 450 uses the Conroe-L (2007−2008) architecture (65 nm), while the Turion 64 MT-32 uses Lancaster (2005−2006) (90 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 450 scores 495 against the Turion 64 MT-32's 505 — a 2% lead for the Turion 64 MT-32. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron 450	Turion 64 MT-32
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2.2 GHz+23%	1.79 GHz
Base Clock	2.2 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB	512 kB
Process	65 nm-28%	90 nm
Architecture	Conroe-L (2007−2008)	Lancaster (2005−2006)
PassMark	495	505+2%
Geekbench 6 Multi	269	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 450 uses the LGA775 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Turion 64 MT-32 uses 754 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron 450	Turion 64 MT-32
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 450) / not specified (Turion 64 MT-32). Primary use case: Celeron 450 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 450 rivals Pentium 4 2.80.