Celeron J1750 vs Turion 64 MT-30

Celeron J1750 vs Turion 64 MT-30 Performance Spectrum

Celeron J1750

2 / 2

505

+6.3%

475

0.0%

Athlon XP 2100+

Athlon XP 2400+

Athlon XP 2700+

Mobile Athlon 64 2800+

Ryzen 5 8640HS

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 MT-30 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 MT-30: 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

✅Better for gaming: +6.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Bay Trail), while Turion 64 MT-30 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Turion 64 MT-30

2005

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron J1750 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (475 vs 505).
❌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 MT-30?

Yes. Celeron J1750 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 6.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 6.3% 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 J1750 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 6.7% 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 J1750 is the stronger fit. You are getting 6.3% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 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 6.7% 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) 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 J1750 vs Turion 64 MT-30 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 MT-30

The Turion 64 MT-30 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: 1.6 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: 475 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron J1750 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Turion 64 MT-30 offers 1 cores / 1 threads — the Celeron J1750 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.41 GHz on the Celeron J1750 versus 1.6 GHz on the Turion 64 MT-30 — a 40.4% clock advantage for the Celeron J1750. The Celeron J1750 uses the Bay Trail-D (2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Turion 64 MT-30 uses Lancaster (2005−2006) (90 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron J1750 scores 505 against the Turion 64 MT-30's 475 — a 6.1% lead for the Celeron J1750. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron J1750 vs 0 kB on the Turion 64 MT-30.

Feature	Celeron J1750	Turion 64 MT-30
Cores / Threads	2 / 2+100%	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2.41 GHz+51%	1.6 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+6%	475
Geekbench 6 Single	150	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	250	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron J1750 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Turion 64 MT-30 uses 754 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron J1750	Turion 64 MT-30
Socket	FCBGA1170	754
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1333	—
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	4	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x (Celeron J1750) / not specified (Turion 64 MT-30). The Celeron J1750 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Bay Trail)), while the Turion 64 MT-30 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron J1750 targets Low Power. Direct competitor: Celeron J1750 rivals Pentium J2850.