Select any two CPUs for comparison
VS

Gaming Performance Comparison

Recommended System Requirements
Game Celeron M ULV 383 1.0GHz Celeron M ULV 523 930MHz
Cyberpunk 2077 3502% 3235%
Assassins Creed: Valhalla 4749% 4390%
Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War 3390% 3132%
Watch Dogs Legion 4749% 4390%
FIFA 21 3269% 3019%
Microsoft Flight Simulator 3980% 3678%
Godfall 6856% 6341%
Grand Theft Auto VI 5820% 5381%
World of Warcraft: Shadowlands 5500% 5085%
Genshin Impact 2627% 2425%

In terms of overall gaming performance, the Intel Celeron M ULV 523 930MHz is marginally better than the Intel Celeron M ULV 383 1.0GHz 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.

The 523 930MHz was released less than a year after the 383 1.0GHz, and so they are likely to have similar levels of support, and similarly optimized performance when running the latest games.

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 383 1.0GHz and the 523 930MHz 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 383 1.0GHz and the 523 930MHz 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 383 1.0GHz and the 523 930MHz are from the same family of CPUs, and thus their clock speeds are directly comparable. With this in mind, it is safe to say that with a 0.07 GHz faster base clock rate, the 383 1.0GHz manages to provide marginally better performance than the 523 930MHz.

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 383 1.0GHz and the 523 930MHz have the same L2 cache size, and neither CPU appears to have an L3 cache. Sadly, there is not enough data to judge based on L1 cache size which CPU would perform better.

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 523 930MHz has a 133 MHz faster System Bus Speed than the 383 1.0GHz, and as such, has a marginally 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.

Both the 383 1.0GHz and the 523 930MHz have the same TDP of 55 Watts, but the 523 930MHz has a lower lithography size, and so will affect your yearly electricity bills less adversely.

CPU Core Details

CPU Codename--
MoBo SocketSocket 956Socket P
Notebook CPUyesyes
Release Date06 Sep 200909 Jan 2011
CPU LinkGD LinkGD Link
Approved

CPU Technical Specifications

CPU Cores1vs1
Clock Speed1 GHzvs0.93 GHz
Turbo Frequency-vs-
System Bus 400 MHzvs533 MHz
Max TDP55 Wvs55 W
Lithography90 nmvs65 nm
Bit Width32 Bitvs64 Bit
Voltage Range0.876V-0.956V KBvs0.85V-1.10V KB
Max Temperature-vs100°C
Virtualization Technologynovsno
Comparison

CPU Cache and Memory

L1 Cache Size-vs-
L2 Cache Size1 KBvs1 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 35mmvs35mm x 35mm
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 range.The 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 range