Select any two CPUs for comparison
VS

Gaming Performance Comparison

Recommended System Requirements
Game Turion II K125 Celeron M 550 2GHz
Cyberpunk 2077 1615% 1537%
Assassins Creed: Valhalla 2209% 2104%
Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War 1562% 1487%
FIFA 21 1504% 1431%
Microsoft Flight Simulator 1843% 1755%
Immortals: Fenyx Rising 1744% 1660%
World of Warcraft: Shadowlands 2567% 2445%
Watch Dogs Legion 2209% 2104%
Genshin Impact 1199% 1140%
Grand Theft Auto VI 2719% 2591%

In terms of overall gaming performance, the Intel Celeron M 550 2GHz is marginally better than the AMD Turion II K125 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 Turion II K125 was released over a year more recently than the Celeron M 550, and so the Turion II K125 is likely to have better levels of support, and will be more optimized for 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 Turion II K125 and the Celeron M 550 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 Turion II K125 and the Celeron M 550 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 Turion II K125 and Celeron M 550 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 550 has a 0.3 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 Turion II K125 and the Celeron M 550 have the same L2 cache size, and neither CPU appears to have an L3 cache. In this case, the Turion II K125 has a 64 KB bigger L1 cache, so would probably provide better performance than the Celeron M 550, at least in this area.

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 Turion II K125 has a 19 Watt lower Maximum TDP than the Celeron M 550, and was created with a 20 nm smaller manufacturing technology. What this means is the Turion II K125 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 CodenameGenevaMerom
MoBo SocketSocket 812Socket P
Notebook CPUyesyes
Release Date12 May 201005 Sep 2007
CPU LinkGD LinkGD Link
Approved

CPU Technical Specifications

CPU Cores1vs1
Clock Speed1.7 GHzvs2 GHz
Turbo Frequency-vs-
Max TDP12 Wvs31 W
Lithography45 nmvs65 nm
Bit Width-vs-
Virtualization Technologynovsno
Comparison

CPU Cache and Memory

L1 Cache Size128 KBvs64 KB
L2 Cache Size1024 KBvs1024 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 Size-vs-
Revision-vs-
PCIe Revision-vs-
PCIe Configurations-vs-

Gaming Performance Value

Performance Value

CPU Mini Review

Mini ReviewTurion 64 X2 is AMD's 64-bit dual-core mobile CPU, intended to compete with Intel's Core and Core 2 CPUs. The Turion 64 X2 was launched on May 17, 2006, after several delays. These processors use Socket S1, and feature DDR2 memory. They also include AMD Virtualization Technology and more power-saving features. AMD first produced the Turion 64 X2 on IBM's 90 nm Silicon on insulator (SOI) process (cores with the Taylor codename). As of May 2007, they have switched to a 65 nm Silicon-Germanium stressed process[citation needed], which was recently achieved through the combined effort of IBM and AMD, with 40% improvement over comparable 65 nm processes[citation needed]. The earlier 90 nm devices were codenamed Taylor and Trinidad, while the newer 65 nm cores have codename Tyler.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.