Celeron J3355 vs Turion 64 ML-28

Celeron J3355 vs Turion 64 ML-28 Performance Spectrum

Celeron J3355

2 / 2

1,203

+0.2%

Atom E3827

Celeron 877

Pentium Dual-Core E2180

1,201

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 J3355 vs Turion 64 ML-28 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 J3355 vs Turion 64 ML-28: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron J3355

2016

Why buy it

✅Draws 10W instead of 512W, a 502W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (6 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics 500, while Turion 64 ML-28 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

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

Turion 64 ML-28

2005

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,201 vs 1,203).
❌5020% higher power demand at 512W vs 10W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron J3355 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron J3355 better than Turion 64 ML-28?

Yes. Celeron J3355 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.2% 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 J3355 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.5% 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 J3355 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron J3355 still makes the most sense overall. Celeron J3355 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Celeron J3355 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2016 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 J3355 vs Turion 64 ML-28 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron J3355

The Celeron J3355 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 30 August 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Apollo Lake (2014−2016) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2.5 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1296. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Memory support: DDR3, DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 1,203 points. Launch price was $107.

Turion 64 ML-28

The Turion 64 ML-28 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: 512 kB. Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: 754. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,201 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron J3355 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Turion 64 ML-28 offers 1 cores / 1 threads — the Celeron J3355 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.5 GHz on the Celeron J3355 versus 1.6 GHz on the Turion 64 ML-28 — a 43.9% clock advantage for the Celeron J3355. The Celeron J3355 uses the Apollo Lake (2014−2016) architecture (14 nm), while the Turion 64 ML-28 uses Lancaster (2005−2006) (90 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron J3355 scores 1,203 against the Turion 64 ML-28's 1,201 — a 0.2% lead for the Celeron J3355. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron J3355	Turion 64 ML-28
Cores / Threads	2 / 2+100%	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2.5 GHz+56%	1.6 GHz
Base Clock	2 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB+100%	512 kB
Process	14 nm-84%	90 nm
Architecture	Apollo Lake (2014−2016)	Lancaster (2005−2006)
PassMark	1,203	1,201
Geekbench 6 Single	450	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	850	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron J3355 uses the FCBGA1296 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Turion 64 ML-28 uses 754 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron J3355	Turion 64 ML-28
Socket	FCBGA1296	754
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2400	—
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	6	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x (Celeron J3355) / not specified (Turion 64 ML-28). The Celeron J3355 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics 500), while the Turion 64 ML-28 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron J3355 targets Low Power. Direct competitor: Celeron J3355 rivals Pentium J4205.