Celeron N3160 vs Turion 64 ML-28

Celeron N3160 vs Turion 64 ML-28 Performance Spectrum

Celeron N3160

4 / 4

1,195

0.0%

1,201

+0.5%

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 N3160 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 N3160 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 N3160

2016

Why buy it

✅Draws 4W instead of 512W, a 508W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics 400, while Turion 64 ML-28 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,195 vs 1,201).

Turion 64 ML-28

2005

Why buy it

✅+0.5% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌12700% higher power demand at 512W vs 4W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron N3160 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N3160 better than Turion 64 ML-28?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron N3160 is ahead with a 0.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Turion 64 ML-28 pulls ahead with 0.5% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Turion 64 ML-28 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.5% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Celeron N3160 still makes the most sense overall. Celeron N3160 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Celeron N3160 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2016 vs 2005). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron N3160 vs Turion 64 ML-28 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron N3160

The Celeron N3160 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 15 January 2016 (9 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 2.24 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: 1,195 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 N3160 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Turion 64 ML-28 offers 1 cores / 1 threads — the Celeron N3160 has 3 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.24 GHz on the Celeron N3160 versus 1.6 GHz on the Turion 64 ML-28 — a 33.3% clock advantage for the Celeron N3160. The Celeron N3160 uses the Braswell (2015−2016) architecture (14 nm), while the Turion 64 ML-28 uses Lancaster (2005−2006) (90 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron N3160 scores 1,195 against the Turion 64 ML-28's 1,201 — a 0.5% lead for the Turion 64 ML-28. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron N3160	Turion 64 ML-28
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+300%	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2.24 GHz+40%	1.6 GHz
Base Clock	1.6 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	2 MB+300%	512 kB
Process	14 nm-84%	90 nm
Architecture	Braswell (2015−2016)	Lancaster (2005−2006)
PassMark	1,195	1,201

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron N3160 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Turion 64 ML-28 uses 754 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron N3160	Turion 64 ML-28
Socket	FCBGA1170	754
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 N3160) / not specified (Turion 64 ML-28). The Celeron N3160 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics 400), while the Turion 64 ML-28 requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Celeron N3160 rivals AMD E2-9010.