Select any two CPUs for comparison
VS

Gaming Performance Comparison

Recommended System Requirements
Game Celeron M 390 1.7GHz Core 2 Duo U7500 1.06GHz
Cyberpunk 2077 2151% 1318%
Assassins Creed: Valhalla 2931% 1809%
Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War 2082% 1274%
FIFA 21 2006% 1226%
Microsoft Flight Simulator 2450% 1506%
Watch Dogs Legion 2931% 1809%
World of Warcraft: Shadowlands 3400% 2105%
Horizon: Zero Dawn 2450% 1506%
Grand Theft Auto VI 3600% 2231%
Genshin Impact 1605% 974%

In terms of overall gaming performance, the Intel Core 2 Duo U7500 1.06GHz is very slightly better than the Intel Celeron M 390 1.7GHz 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 Core 2 Duo was released less than a year after the Celeron M 390, and so they are likely to have similar levels of support, and similarly optimized performance when running the latest games.

The Core 2 Duo has 1 more core than the Celeron M 390. However, while the Core 2 Duo will probably perform better than the Celeron M 390, both CPUs are likely to struggle with the latest games, and will almost certainly bottleneck high-end graphics cards. Both CPUs also have quite low clock frequencies, which means recent games will have to be played at low settings, assuming you own an equivalently powerful GPU.

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 390 and Core 2 Duo 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 390 has a 0.64 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 Core 2 Duo.

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 Core 2 Duo has a 1 KB bigger L2 cache than the Celeron M 390, but neither of the CPUs have L3 caches, so the Core 2 Duo 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 Core 2 Duo has a 133 MHz faster System Bus Speed than the Celeron M 390, 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 Core 2 Duo has a 11 Watt lower Maximum TDP than the Celeron M 390, and was created with a 25 nm smaller manufacturing technology. What this means is the Core 2 Duo 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 CodenameDothanMerom
MoBo SocketSocket 479Socket 479
Notebook CPUyesyes
Release Date25 Mar 200601 Feb 2008
CPU LinkGD LinkGD Link
Approved

CPU Technical Specifications

CPU Cores1vs2
Clock Speed1.7 GHzvs1.06 GHz
Turbo Frequency-vs-
System Bus 400 MHzvs533 MHz
Max TDP21 Wvs10 W
Lithography90 nmvs65 nm
Bit Width32 Bitvs64 Bit
Voltage Range1.004V-1.292V KBvs0.8V-0.975V KB
Virtualization Technologynovsyes
Comparison

CPU Cache and Memory

L1 Cache Size-vs128 KB
L2 Cache Size1 KBvs2 KB
L2 Cache Speed-vs-
L3 Cache Size-vs-
ECC Memory Supportnovsno
Comparison

CPU Graphics

Graphicsno
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 is a family of microprocessors from Intel targeted at the low-end consumer market. CPUs in the Celeron brand have used designs from sixth- to eighth-generation CPU microarchitectures. [Please be aware that GD data is constantly refined as more information and reports are made available.]Core 2 is a brand encompassing a range of Intel's consumer 64-bit x86-64 single-, dual-, and quad-core microprocessors based on the Core microarchitecture. The single- and dual-core models are single-die, whereas the quad-core models comprise two dies, each containing two cores, packaged in a multi-chip module. The introduction of Core 2 relegated the Pentium brand to the mid-range market, and reunified laptop and desktop CPU lines, which previously had been divided into the Pentium 4, Pentium D, and Pentium M brands.
The Core microarchitecture returned to lower clock rates and improved the usage of both available clock cycles and power when compared with the preceding NetBurst microarchitecture of the Pentium 4/D-branded CPUs. The Core microarchitecture provides more efficient decoding stages, execution units, caches, and buses, reducing the power consumption of Core 2-branded CPUs while increasing their processing capacity. Intel's CPUs have varied widely in power consumption according to clock rate, architecture, and semiconductor process, shown in the CPU power dissipation tables.