Celeron J1750 vs Turion 64 ML-34

Celeron J1750 vs Turion 64 ML-34 Performance Spectrum

Celeron J1750

2 / 2

505

0.0%

515

+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 J1750 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 J1750 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 J1750

2013

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 35W, a 34W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Bay Trail), while Turion 64 ML-34 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (505 vs 515).

Turion 64 ML-34

2005

Why buy it

✅+2% higher PassMark.
✅300% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌3400% higher power demand at 35W vs 1W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron J1750 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron J1750 better than Turion 64 ML-34?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron J1750 is ahead with a 1.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Turion 64 ML-34 pulls ahead with 2% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Turion 64 ML-34 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?

Celeron J1750 still makes the most sense overall. Celeron J1750 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Celeron J1750 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2005). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron J1750 vs Turion 64 ML-34 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron J1750

The Celeron J1750 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Bay Trail-D (2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.41 GHz, with boost up to 2.41 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 505 points. Launch price was $72.

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 J1750 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Turion 64 ML-34 offers 1 cores / 1 threads — the Celeron J1750 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.41 GHz on the Celeron J1750 versus 1.8 GHz on the Turion 64 ML-34 — a 29% clock advantage for the Celeron J1750. The Celeron J1750 uses the Bay Trail-D (2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Turion 64 ML-34 uses Lancaster (2005−2006) (90 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron J1750 scores 505 against the Turion 64 ML-34's 515 — a 2% lead for the Turion 64 ML-34. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron J1750 vs 0 kB on the Turion 64 ML-34.

Feature	Celeron J1750	Turion 64 ML-34
Cores / Threads	2 / 2+100%	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2.41 GHz+34%	1.8 GHz
Base Clock	2.41 GHz	—
L3 Cache	1 MB L2 Cache	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB	1 MB
Process	22 nm-76%	90 nm
Architecture	Bay Trail-D (2013)	Lancaster (2005−2006)
PassMark	505	515+2%
Geekbench 6 Single	150	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	250	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron J1750 uses the FCBGA1170 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 DDR3L-1333 on the Celeron J1750 versus DDR-400 on the Turion 64 ML-34 — the Celeron J1750 supports -433.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron J1750 supports up to 8 GB of RAM compared to 2 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Celeron J1750) vs 1 (Turion 64 ML-34). PCIe lanes: 4 (Celeron J1750) vs 16 (Turion 64 ML-34) — the Turion 64 ML-34 offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	Celeron J1750	Turion 64 ML-34
Socket	FCBGA1170	754
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1333	DDR-400
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB+300%	2 GB
RAM Channels	2+100%	1
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	4	16+300%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x (Celeron J1750) vs AMD-V (Turion 64 ML-34). The Celeron J1750 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Bay Trail)), while the Turion 64 ML-34 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron J1750 targets Low Power, Turion 64 ML-34 targets Mobile. Direct competitor: Celeron J1750 rivals Pentium J2850.