Celeron N3150 vs Turion 64 X2 TL-50

Celeron N3150 vs Turion 64 X2 TL-50 Performance Spectrum

Celeron N3150

4 / 4

1,177

0.0%

1,184

+0.6%

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 N3150 vs Turion 64 X2 TL-50 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 N3150 vs Turion 64 X2 TL-50: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron N3150

2015

Why buy it

✅Draws 6W instead of 512W, a 506W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Braswell), while Turion 64 X2 TL-50 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Turion 64 X2 TL-50 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (1,177 vs 1,184).

Turion 64 X2 TL-50

2006

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌8433.3% higher power demand at 512W vs 6W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron N3150 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Turion 64 X2 TL-50 better than Celeron N3150?

Yes. Turion 64 X2 TL-50 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 3.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.6% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Turion 64 X2 TL-50 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 3.6% 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, Turion 64 X2 TL-50 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.6% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Turion 64 X2 TL-50 still makes the most sense overall. Turion 64 X2 TL-50 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 3.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Celeron N3150 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 vs 2006). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron N3150 vs Turion 64 X2 TL-50 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron N3150

The Celeron N3150 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 April 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Braswell (2015−2016) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.08 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,177 points. Launch price was $107.

Turion 64 X2 TL-50

The Turion 64 X2 TL-50 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 17 May 2006 (19 years ago). It is based on the Taylor (2006) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.6 GHz. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: S1. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,184 points. Launch price was $154.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron N3150 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Turion 64 X2 TL-50 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Celeron N3150 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.08 GHz on the Celeron N3150 versus 1.6 GHz on the Turion 64 X2 TL-50 — a 26.1% clock advantage for the Celeron N3150. The Celeron N3150 uses the Braswell (2015−2016) architecture (14 nm), while the Turion 64 X2 TL-50 uses Taylor (2006) (90 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron N3150 scores 1,177 against the Turion 64 X2 TL-50's 1,184 — a 0.6% lead for the Turion 64 X2 TL-50.

Feature	Celeron N3150	Turion 64 X2 TL-50
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.08 GHz+30%	1.6 GHz
Base Clock	1.6 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	—
L2 Cache	2 MB+300%	512 kB
Process	14 nm-84%	90 nm
Architecture	Braswell (2015−2016)	Taylor (2006)
PassMark	1,177	1,184

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron N3150 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Turion 64 X2 TL-50 uses S1 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron N3150	Turion 64 X2 TL-50
Socket	FCBGA1170	S1
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	1600	—
Max RAM Capacity	8	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	4	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: true (Celeron N3150) / not specified (Turion 64 X2 TL-50). The Celeron N3150 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Braswell)), while the Turion 64 X2 TL-50 requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Celeron N3150 rivals AMD E2-7110.