Celeron 5205U vs Turion II Neo K685

Celeron 5205U vs Turion II Neo K685 Performance Spectrum

Celeron 5205U

2 / 2

1,432

+0.6%

1,424

0.0%

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 5205U vs Turion II Neo K685 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 5205U vs Turion II Neo K685: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 5205U

2019

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (12 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics (Comet Lake), while Turion II Neo K685 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌1400% higher power demand at 15W vs 1W.

Turion II Neo K685

2010

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 15W, a 14W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,424 vs 1,432).
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 5205U can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 5205U better than Turion II Neo K685?

Yes. Celeron 5205U is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 37 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.6% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron 5205U is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.1% more average FPS across 37 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 5205U is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.6% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron 5205U still makes the most sense overall. Celeron 5205U comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 37 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Celeron 5205U makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2019 vs 2010) 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 5205U vs Turion II Neo K685 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 5205U

The Celeron 5205U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 31 October 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Comet Lake-U (2019−2020) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.9 GHz, with boost up to 1.9 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1528. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR3, DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 1,432 points. Launch price was $107.

Turion II Neo K685

The Turion II Neo K685 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Geneva (2010) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.8 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: S1g4. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,424 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 5205U and Turion II Neo K685 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.9 GHz on the Celeron 5205U versus 1.8 GHz on the Turion II Neo K685 — a 5.4% clock advantage for the Celeron 5205U. The Celeron 5205U uses the Comet Lake-U (2019−2020) architecture (14 nm), while the Turion II Neo K685 uses Geneva (2010) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 5205U scores 1,432 against the Turion II Neo K685's 1,424 — a 0.6% lead for the Celeron 5205U.

Feature	Celeron 5205U	Turion II Neo K685
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.9 GHz+6%	1.8 GHz
Base Clock	1.9 GHz	—
L3 Cache	2 MB	—
L2 Cache	1 MB	1 MB
Process	14 nm-69%	45 nm
Architecture	Comet Lake-U (2019−2020)	Geneva (2010)
PassMark	1,432	1,424
Geekbench 6 Single	385	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	650	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 5205U uses the FCBGA1528 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Turion II Neo K685 uses S1g4 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron 5205U	Turion II Neo K685
Socket	FCBGA1528	S1g4
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2400	—
Max RAM Capacity	64 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	12	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Celeron 5205U) / not specified (Turion II Neo K685). The Celeron 5205U includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics (Comet Lake)), while the Turion II Neo K685 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 5205U targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 5205U rivals Pentium Gold 6405U.