Celeron N4500 vs Turion 64 X2 TL-66

Celeron N4500 vs Turion 64 X2 TL-66 Performance Spectrum

Celeron N4500

2 / 2

1,817

+0.5%

1,808

0.0%

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 N4500 vs Turion 64 X2 TL-66 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 N4500 vs Turion 64 X2 TL-66: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron N4500

2021

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌500% higher power demand at 6W vs 1W.

Turion 64 X2 TL-66

2007

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 6W, a 5W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,808 vs 1,817).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N4500 better than Turion 64 X2 TL-66?

Yes. Celeron N4500 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.5% 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 N4500 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.5% 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 N4500 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.5% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron N4500 still makes the most sense overall. Celeron N4500 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Celeron N4500 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2021 vs 2007) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron N4500 vs Turion 64 X2 TL-66 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron N4500

The Celeron N4500 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Jasper Lake (2021) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.1 GHz, with boost up to 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 1.5 MB (total). Built on 10 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1338. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 1,817 points. Launch price was $69.

Turion 64 X2 TL-66

The Turion 64 X2 TL-66 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Brisbane (2007−2008) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2.3 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,808 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron N4500 and Turion 64 X2 TL-66 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.8 GHz on the Celeron N4500 versus 2.3 GHz on the Turion 64 X2 TL-66 — a 19.6% clock advantage for the Celeron N4500. The Celeron N4500 uses the Jasper Lake (2021) architecture (10 nm), while the Turion 64 X2 TL-66 uses Brisbane (2007−2008) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron N4500 scores 1,817 against the Turion 64 X2 TL-66's 1,808 — a 0.5% lead for the Celeron N4500.

Feature	Celeron N4500	Turion 64 X2 TL-66
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.8 GHz+22%	2.3 GHz
Base Clock	1.1 GHz	—
L3 Cache	4 MB (total)	—
L2 Cache	1.5 MB (total)+50%	1 MB
Process	10 nm-85%	65 nm
Architecture	Jasper Lake (2021)	Brisbane (2007−2008)
PassMark	1,817	1,808