Celeron SU2300 vs Turion 64 ML-37

Celeron SU2300 vs Turion 64 ML-37 Performance Spectrum

Celeron SU2300

545

0.0%

555

+1.8%

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 SU2300 vs Turion 64 ML-37 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 SU2300 vs Turion 64 ML-37: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron SU2300

2009

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (545 vs 555).
❌Launch MSRP is still $134 MSRP, while Turion 64 ML-37 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌900% higher power demand at 10W vs 1W.

Turion 64 ML-37

2005

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 10W, a 9W reduction.

Trade-offs

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

Quick Answers

So, is Turion 64 ML-37 better than Celeron SU2300?

Yes. Turion 64 ML-37 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you 1.8% 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 ML-37 has the edge because it leads the single-thread side of this matchup with 1.8% stronger overall PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Turion 64 ML-37 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.8% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Turion 64 ML-37 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Turion 64 ML-37 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $134 MSRP, and it still gives you 1.8% higher PassMark. Celeron SU2300 only looks good on raw value math because it is a cheap legacy laptop chip, not because it is a real desktop gaming recommendation. It simply does not keep up in modern games.

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

Celeron SU2300 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2009 vs 2005). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron SU2300 vs Turion 64 ML-37 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron SU2300

The Celeron SU2300 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. Base frequency: 1.2 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: BGA956. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 545 points. Launch price was $69.

Turion 64 ML-37

The Turion 64 ML-37 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: 2 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: 555 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Turion 64 ML-37 is built on the Lancaster (2005−2006) architecture. In PassMark, the Celeron SU2300 scores 545 against the Turion 64 ML-37's 555 — a 1.8% lead for the Turion 64 ML-37. L3 cache: 1 MB on the Celeron SU2300 vs 0 kB on the Turion 64 ML-37.

Feature	Celeron SU2300	Turion 64 ML-37
Cores / Threads	—	1 / 1
Boost Clock	—	2 GHz
Base Clock	1.2 GHz	—
L3 Cache	1 MB	0 kB
L2 Cache	—	1 MB
Process	45 nm-50%	90 nm
Architecture	—	Lancaster (2005−2006)
PassMark	545	555+2%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron SU2300 uses the BGA956 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Turion 64 ML-37 uses 754 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.