Intel Pentium 4 560 vs Celeron 560 |
Released July, 2005
Intel Pentium 4 560
- 3.6 GHz
- Single core
4.4 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Intel Pentium 4 560
 | Much better geekbench 3 AES single core score 126,700 MB/s | | Much higher clock speed 3.6 GHz |
VS
Released January, 2008
Intel Celeron 560
- 2.13 GHz
- Single core
4.3 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Celeron 560
| | Much newer manufacturing process 65 nm | | More advanced architecture x86-64 |
| | Much lower typical power consumption 25.19W | | Has a NX bit Yes |
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of Pentium 4 560 vs Celeron 560 among all CPUs
Performance | |
Benchmark performance using all cores | |
| PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more | |
Single-core Performance | |
Individual core benchmark performance | |
| PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more | |
Integrated Graphics | |
Integrated GPU performance for graphics | |
| Sky Diver and Cloud Gate | |
Integrated Graphics (OpenCL) | |
Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more | |
Performance per Watt | |
How efficiently does the processor use electricity? | |
| Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more | |
Value | |
Are you paying a premium for performance? | |
| Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more | |
No winner declared
Too close to call
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Much better geekbench 3 AES single core score | 126,700 MB/s | vs | 85,000 MB/s | Around 50% better geekbench 3 AES single core score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Much higher clock speed | 3.6 GHz | vs | 2.13 GHz | Around 70% higher clock speed | |||
| |||||||
| Much newer manufacturing process | 65 nm | vs | 90 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| More advanced architecture | x86-64 | vs | x86 | A 64-bit architecture allows more RAM to be installed and accessed by the processor | |||
| Much lower typical power consumption | 25.19W | vs | 93.44W | 3.7x lower typical power consumption | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Prevents a common class of security exploits | |||
| Much higher Maximum operating temperature | 100 °C | vs | 72.8 °C | More than 35% higher Maximum operating temperature | |||
| Much lower annual commercial energy cost | 27.16 $/year | vs | 100.74 $/year | 3.7x lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| Much lower annual home energy cost | 7.47 $/year | vs | 27.7 $/year | 3.7x lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Newer | Jan, 2008 | vs | Jul, 2005 | Release date over 2 years later | |||
| Better performance per watt | 2.2 pt/W | vs | 0.91 pt/W | Around 2.5x better performance per watt | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Pentium 4 560 vs Celeron 560
GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Pentium 4 560 | vs | Celeron 560 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 3.6 GHz | 2.13 GHz | |
| Cores | Single core | Single core | |
| Socket type | |||
| LGA 775 | |||
| 478 | |||
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | No | Yes | |
| Supports trusted computing | No | No | |
| Has virtualization support | No | No | |
| Instruction set extensions | |||
| SSE2 | |||
| MMX | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| SSE | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | No | No | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 115W | 31W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 27.7 $/year | 7.47 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 100.74 $/year | 27.16 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 0.91 pt/W | 2.2 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 93.44W | 25.19W | |
details | Pentium 4 560 | vs | Celeron 560 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 2 | 1 | |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 1 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 1 MB/core | 1 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 90 nm | 65 nm | |
| Transistor count | 125,000,000 | 291,000,000 | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
| Clock multiplier | 18 | 16 | |
| Voltage range | 1.2 - 1.43V | 0.95 - 1.3V | |
| Operating temperature | Unknown - 72.8°C | Unknown - 100°C | |
integrated graphics | |||
| GPU | None | None | |
| Label | N/A | N/A | |
| Latest DirectX | N/A | N/A | |
| Number of displays supported | N/A | N/A | |
| GPU clock speed | N/A | N/A | |
| Turbo clock speed | N/A | N/A | |
| 3DMark06 | N/A | N/A | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | FSB | FSB | |
| Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
| Clock speed | 800 MHz | 533 MHz | |
 Intel Pentium 4 560  Report a correction |  Intel Celeron 560 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| T4500 vs 560 | ||
 | VS | |
| $117 | ||
| Core i3 560 vs Celeron 560 | ||
 | VS | |
| T5250 vs 560 | ||
 | VS | |
| $179 | ||
| E8400 vs 560 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $60 | ||
| 560M vs 560 | ||
 | VS | |
| 3000+ vs 560 | ||
 | VS | |
| $117 | ||
| E4500 vs 560 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $300 | $305 | |
| 2500 vs W3520 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $350 | $272 | |
| 6700K vs 4790K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 6410 vs 4200U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 7th Gen A9-9410 vs 6200U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $225 | $134 | |
| 3217U vs 847 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $161 | $275 | |
| N3540 vs 4005U | ||
| | VS |  |
| $350 | $250 | |
| 6700K vs 6600K | ||
