Select any two CPUs for comparison
VS

Gaming Performance Comparison

Recommended System Requirements
Game Celeron M 600MHz Celeron M ULV 523 930MHz
Cyberpunk 2077 9379% 3235%
Assassins Creed: Valhalla 12661% 4390%
Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War 9085% 3132%
Watch Dogs Legion 12661% 4390%
FIFA 21 8765% 3019%
Microsoft Flight Simulator 10637% 3678%
Godfall 18205% 6341%
Grand Theft Auto VI 15479% 5381%
World of Warcraft: Shadowlands 14637% 5085%
Genshin Impact 7077% 2425%

In terms of overall gaming performance, the Intel Celeron M ULV 523 930MHz is marginally better than the Intel Celeron M 600MHz 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 Celeron M ULV was released less than a year after the Celeron M 600MHz, 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 Celeron M 600MHz and the Celeron M ULV 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 600MHz and the Celeron M ULV 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 600MHz and the Celeron M ULV 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 0.33 GHz faster base clock rate, the Celeron M ULV manages to provide slightly better performance than the Celeron M 600MHz.

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 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 133 MHz faster System Bus Speed than the Celeron M 600MHz, 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.

The Celeron M 600MHz has a 48 Watt lower Maximum TDP than the Celeron M ULV, and was created with a 65 nm smaller manufacturing technology. What this means is the Celeron M 600MHz will consume significantly less power and consequently produce less heat, enabling more prolonged computational tasks with fewer adverse effects. This will lower your yearly electricity bill significantly, as well as prevent you from having to invest in extra cooling mechanisms (unless you overclock).

CPU Core Details

CPU Codename--
MoBo SocketSocket 479Socket P
Notebook CPUyesyes
Release Date01 May 200309 Jan 2011
CPU LinkGD LinkGD Link
Approved

CPU Technical Specifications

CPU Cores1vs1
Clock Speed0.6 GHzvs0.93 GHz
Turbo Frequency-vs-
System Bus 400 MHzvs533 MHz
Max TDP7 Wvs55 W
Lithography-vs65 nm
Bit Width32 Bitvs64 Bit
Voltage Range-vs0.85V-1.10V KB
Max Temperature-vs100°C
Virtualization Technologynovsno
Comparison

CPU Cache and Memory

L1 Cache Size-vs-
L2 Cache Size-vs1 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 Size-vs35mm x 35mm
Revision-vs-
PCIe Revision-vs-
PCIe Configurations-vs-

Gaming Performance Value

Performance Value

CPU Mini Review

Mini ReviewMerom is the code name for various Intel processors that are sold as Core 2 Duo, Core 2 Solo, Pentium Dual-Core and Celeron. It was the first mobile processor to be based on the Core microarchitecture, replacing the Enhanced Pentium M based Yonah processor. Merom has product code 80537, which is shared with Merom-2M and Merom-L that are very similar but have a smaller L2 cache. Merom-L has only one processor core and a different CPUID model. The desktop version of Merom is Conroe and the dual-socket server version is Woodcrest. Merom has subsequently been replaced by Penryn.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