Celeron 925 vs Apple M1 Pro
Aggregate performance score
M1 Pro outperforms Celeron 925 by a whopping 3681% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 953 | 3450 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Apple M-Series | no data |
| Power efficiency | no data | 0.31 |
| Designer | Apple | Intel |
| Release date | 18 October 2021 (4 years ago) | 1 January 2011 (15 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Basic parameters of M1 Pro and Celeron 925: number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 10 (Deca-Core) | no data |
| Threads | 10 | no data |
| Base clock speed | 2.064 GHz | 2.3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.22 GHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 2.9 MB | no data |
| L2 cache | 28 MB | no data |
| L3 cache | 24 MB | 1 MB L2 Cache |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 45 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | 33700 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
Compatibility
Information on M1 Pro and Celeron 925 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Power consumption (TDP) | W | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by M1 Pro and Celeron 925. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
Security technologies
M1 Pro and Celeron 925 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by M1 Pro and Celeron 925 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | no data | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Apple M1 Pro 16-Core GPU | no data |
Synthetic benchmarks
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.83 | 0.26 |
| Recency | 18 October 2021 | 1 January 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 45 nm |
Apple M1 Pro has a 3681% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 800% more advanced lithography process.
The Apple M1 Pro is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Celeron 925 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
