Select any two CPUs for comparison
VS

Gaming Performance Comparison

Recommended System Requirements
Game Celeron M ULV 523 930MHz Celeron M LV 400MHz
Cyberpunk 2077 3235% 10018%
Assassins Creed: Valhalla 4390% 13521%
Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War 3132% 9704%
Watch Dogs Legion 4390% 13521%
FIFA 21 3019% 9363%
Microsoft Flight Simulator 3678% 11361%
Godfall 6341% 19439%
Grand Theft Auto VI 5381% 16529%
World of Warcraft: Shadowlands 5085% 15630%
Genshin Impact 2425% 7561%

In terms of overall gaming performance, the Intel Celeron M ULV 523 930MHz is marginally better than the Intel Celeron M LV 400MHz when it comes to running the latest games. This also means it will be less likely to bottleneck more powerful GPUs, allowing them to achieve more of their gaming performance potential.

Both the Celeron M ULV 523 930MHz and the Celeron M LV 400MHz were released at the same time, so are likely to be quite similar.

Both CPUs exhibit very poor performance, so rather than upgrading from one to the other you should consider looking at more powerful CPUs. Neither of these will be able to run the latest games in any playable way.

The Celeron M ULV and the Celeron M LV both have 1 cores, and so are quite likely to struggle with the latest games, or at least bottleneck high-end graphics cards when running them. With a decent accompanying GPU, the Celeron M ULV and the Celeron M LV may still be able to run slightly older games fairly effectively.

More important for gaming than the number of cores and threads is the clock rate. Problematically, unless the two CPUs are from the same family, this can only serve as a general guide and nothing like an exact comparison, because the clock cycles per instruction (CPI) will vary so much.

The Celeron M ULV and Celeron M LV are not from the same family of CPUs, so their clock speeds are by no means directly comparable. Bear in mind, then, that while the Celeron M ULV has a 0.53 GHz faster frequency, this is not always an indicator that it will be superior in performance, despite frequency being crucial when trying to avoid GPU bottlenecking. In this case, however, the difference is enough that it possibly indicates the superiority of the .

Aside from the clock rate, the next-most important CPU features for PC game performance are L2 and L3 cache size. Faster than RAM, the more cache available, the more data that can be stored for lightning-fast retrieval. L1 Cache is not usually an issue anymore for gaming, with most high-end CPUs eking out about the same L1 performance, and L2 is more important than L3 - but L3 is still important if you want to reach the highest levels of performance. Bear in mind that although it is better to have a larger cache, the larger it is, the higher the latency, so a balance has to be struck.

The Celeron M LV has a 127 KB bigger L2 cache than the Celeron M ULV, but neither of the CPUs have L3 caches, so the Celeron M LV wins out in this area with its larger L2 cache.

The System Bus Speed is important for providing higher bandwidth, and with higher bandwidth the system has the capacity to move more data over a certain time period than it would with lower bandwidth.

The Celeron M ULV has a 433 MHz faster System Bus Speed than the Celeron M LV, and as such, has a significantly higher limit when it comes to the size of the data being processed at once.

The maximum Thermal Design Power is the power in Watts that the CPU will consume in the worst case scenario. The lithography is the semiconductor manufacturing technology being used to create the CPU - the smaller this is, the more transistors that can be fit into the CPU, and the closer the connections. For both the lithography and the TDP, it is the lower the better, because a lower number means a lower amount of power is necessary to run the CPU, and consequently a lower amount of heat is produced.

The Celeron M ULV has a 10 Watt lower Maximum TDP than the Celeron M LV, and was created with a 115 nm smaller manufacturing technology. What this means is the Celeron M ULV will consume slightly less power and consequently produce less heat, enabling more prolonged computational tasks with fewer adverse effects. This will lower your yearly electricity bill slightly, as well as prevent you from having to invest in extra cooling mechanisms (unless you overclock).

CPU Core Details

CPU Codename-Tualatin
MoBo SocketSocket PSocket 479
Notebook CPUyesyes
Release Date09 Jan 201109 Jan 2011
CPU LinkGD LinkGD Link
Approved

CPU Technical Specifications

CPU Cores1vs1
Clock Speed0.93 GHzvs0.4 GHz
Turbo Frequency-vs-
System Bus 533 MHzvs100 MHz
Max TDP55 Wvs65 W
Lithography65 nmvs180 nm
Bit Width64 Bitvs32 Bit
Voltage Range0.85V-1.10V KBvs1.35V KB
Max Temperature100°Cvs-
Virtualization Technologynovsno
Comparison

CPU Cache and Memory

L1 Cache Size-vs-
L2 Cache Size1 KBvs128 KB
L2 Cache Speed-vs-
L3 Cache Size-vs-
ECC Memory Supportnovsno
Comparison

CPU Graphics

Graphics
Base GPU Frequency-vs-
Max GPU Frequency-vs-
DirectX-vs-
Displays Supported-vs-
Comparison

CPU Package and Version Specifications

Package Size35mm x 35mmvs27.2mm x 31mm
Revision-vs-
PCIe Revision-vs-
PCIe Configurations-vs-

Gaming Performance Value

Performance Value

CPU Mini Review

Mini ReviewThe Celeron brand has been used by Intel for several distinct ranges of x86 CPUs targeted at budget personal computers. Celeron processors can run all IA-32 computer programs, but their performance is somewhat lower when compared to similar CPUs with higher-priced Intel CPU brands. For example, the Celeron brand will often have less cache memory, or have advanced features purposely disabled. These missing features have had a variable impact on performance. In some cases, the effect was significant and in other cases the differences were relatively minor. Many of the Celeron designs have achieved a very high bang for the buck, while at other times, the performance difference has been noticeable. This has been the primary justification for the higher cost of other Intel CPU brands versus the Celeron rangeThese Celeron processors, released initially at 1.2 GHz on 2 October 2001, were based on the Pentium III 'Tualatin' core and made with a 0.13 micrometer process for the FCPGA 2 socket 370. They were nicknamed 'Tualeron' — a portmanteau of the words Tualatin and Celeron. Some software and users refer to the chips as Celeron-S, referring to the chip's lineage with the Pentium III-S, but this is not an official designation. Intel later released 1 GHz and 1.1 GHz parts (which were given the extension A to their name to differentiate them from the Coppermine-128 of the same clock rate they replaced). A 1.3 GHz chip, launched 4 January 2002, and finally a 1.4 GHz chip, launched 15 May 2002 (the same day as the 1.7 GHz Willamett-based Celeron launch), marked the end of the Tualatin-256 line.