Celeron 925 vs Turion 64 MT-32

Celeron 925 vs Turion 64 MT-32 Performance Spectrum

Celeron 925

525

+4.0%

505

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 925 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 925 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 925

2011

Why buy it

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

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $100 MSRP, while Turion 64 MT-32 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Turion 64 MT-32

2005

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (505 vs 525).
❌1362.9% higher power demand at 512W vs 35W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 925 better than Turion 64 MT-32?

Yes. Celeron 925 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you 4% 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 925 has the edge because it leads the single-thread side of this matchup with 4% stronger overall PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 925 is the stronger fit. You are getting 4% better PassMark.

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

Celeron 925 is the better buy right now. Celeron 925 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $100 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 4.0% higher PassMark. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (5.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 925 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2005). That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron 925 vs Turion 64 MT-32 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 925

The Celeron 925 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. Base frequency: 2.3 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache. Built on 45 nm process technology. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 525 points. Launch price was $69.

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

The Turion 64 MT-32 is built on the Lancaster (2005−2006) architecture. In PassMark, the Celeron 925 scores 525 against the Turion 64 MT-32's 505 — a 3.9% lead for the Celeron 925. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron 925 vs 0 kB on the Turion 64 MT-32.

Feature	Celeron 925	Turion 64 MT-32
Cores / Threads	—	1 / 1
Boost Clock	—	1.79 GHz
Base Clock	2.3 GHz	—
L3 Cache	1 MB L2 Cache	0 kB
L2 Cache	—	512 kB
Process	45 nm-50%	90 nm
Architecture	—	Lancaster (2005−2006)
PassMark	525+4%	505

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: No (Celeron 925) / not specified (Turion 64 MT-32). Primary use case: Celeron 925 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 925 rivals Pentium 4 2.80.