Celeron 807 vs Turion 64 ML-34

Celeron 807 vs Turion 64 ML-34 Performance Spectrum

Celeron 807

1 / 2

535

+3.9%

515

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 807 vs Turion 64 ML-34 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 807 vs Turion 64 ML-34: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 807

2012

Why buy it

✅+3.9% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 17W instead of 35W, a 18W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge), while Turion 64 ML-34 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $70 MSRP, while Turion 64 ML-34 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Turion 64 ML-34

2005

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (515 vs 535).
❌105.9% higher power demand at 35W vs 17W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 807 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 807 better than Turion 64 ML-34?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Turion 64 ML-34 is ahead with a 1.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 807 pulls ahead with 3.9% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 807 is the stronger fit. You are getting 3.9% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron 807 is the better buy right now. Celeron 807 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $70 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 3.9% better PassMark. The compromise is that Turion 64 ML-34 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 1.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (7.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Celeron 807 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2012 vs 2005) and more multi-core headroom with 1 cores / 2 threads instead of 1/1. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron 807 vs Turion 64 ML-34 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 807

The Celeron 807 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 July 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 1 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.5 GHz, with boost up to 1.5 GHz. L3 cache: 1.5 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1023. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 535 points. Launch price was $70.

Turion 64 ML-34

The Turion 64 ML-34 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: 1.8 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: 754. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR1. Passmark benchmark score: 515 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron 807 packs 1 cores / 2 threads, matching the Turion 64 ML-34's 1 cores. Boost clocks reach 1.5 GHz on the Celeron 807 versus 1.8 GHz on the Turion 64 ML-34 — a 18.2% clock advantage for the Turion 64 ML-34. The Celeron 807 uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Turion 64 ML-34 uses Lancaster (2005−2006) (90 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 807 scores 535 against the Turion 64 ML-34's 515 — a 3.8% lead for the Celeron 807. L3 cache: 1.5 MB (total) on the Celeron 807 vs 0 kB on the Turion 64 ML-34.

Feature	Celeron 807	Turion 64 ML-34
Cores / Threads	1 / 2	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1.5 GHz	1.8 GHz+20%
Base Clock	1.5 GHz	—
L3 Cache	1.5 MB (total)	0 kB
L2 Cache	256K (per core)+25500%	1 MB
Process	32 nm-64%	90 nm
Architecture	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)	Lancaster (2005−2006)
PassMark	535+4%	515

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 807 uses the BGA1023 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Turion 64 ML-34 uses 754 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the Celeron 807 versus DDR-400 on the Turion 64 ML-34 — the Celeron 807 supports -433.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 807 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 2 GB — 700% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Celeron 807) vs 1 (Turion 64 ML-34). PCIe lanes: 0 (Celeron 807) vs 16 (Turion 64 ML-34) — the Turion 64 ML-34 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	Celeron 807	Turion 64 ML-34
Socket	BGA1023	754
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333	DDR-400
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+700%	2 GB
RAM Channels	2+100%	1
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x (Celeron 807) vs AMD-V (Turion 64 ML-34). The Celeron 807 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)), while the Turion 64 ML-34 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 807 targets Mobile, Turion 64 ML-34 targets Mobile.