Celeron E1200 vs Turion 64 ML-44

Celeron E1200 vs Turion 64 ML-44 Performance Spectrum

Celeron E1200

2 / 2

665

+3.1%

645

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 E1200 vs Turion 64 ML-44 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 E1200 vs Turion 64 ML-44: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron E1200

2008

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +6.3% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $53 MSRP, while Turion 64 ML-44 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌6400% higher power demand at 65W vs 1W.

Turion 64 ML-44

2006

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 65W, a 64W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron E1200 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (645 vs 665).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron E1200 better than Turion 64 ML-44?

Yes. Celeron E1200 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 6.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 3.1% 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 E1200 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 6.3% 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, Celeron E1200 is the stronger fit. You are getting 3.1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron E1200 is the better buy right now. Celeron E1200 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $53 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 6.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (12.5 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 E1200 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2008 vs 2006) and more multi-core headroom with 2 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 E1200 vs Turion 64 ML-44 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron E1200

The Celeron E1200 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 January 2008 (17 years ago). It is based on the Allendale (2006−2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (total). Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 665 points. Launch price was $40.

Turion 64 ML-44

The Turion 64 ML-44 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: 2.4 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: 645 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron E1200 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Turion 64 ML-44 offers 1 cores / 1 threads — the Celeron E1200 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 1.6 GHz on the Celeron E1200 versus 2.4 GHz on the Turion 64 ML-44 — a 40% clock advantage for the Turion 64 ML-44. The Celeron E1200 uses the Allendale (2006−2009) architecture (65 nm), while the Turion 64 ML-44 uses Lancaster (2005−2006) (90 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron E1200 scores 665 against the Turion 64 ML-44's 645 — a 3.1% lead for the Celeron E1200. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron E1200	Turion 64 ML-44
Cores / Threads	2 / 2+100%	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1.6 GHz	2.4 GHz+50%
Base Clock	1.6 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB (total)	1 MB+100%
Process	65 nm-28%	90 nm
Architecture	Allendale (2006−2009)	Lancaster (2005−2006)
PassMark	665+3%	645
Geekbench 6 Single	210	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	380	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron E1200 uses the LGA775 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Turion 64 ML-44 uses 754 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron E1200	Turion 64 ML-44
Socket	LGA775	754
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 2.0+82%
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-800	—
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	0	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: No (Celeron E1200) / not specified (Turion 64 ML-44). Primary use case: Celeron E1200 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron E1200 rivals Pentium E2140.