Celeron 900 vs Athlon 64 X2 4600+
Aggregate performance score
Athlon 64 X2 4600+ outperforms Celeron 900 by an impressive 73% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4600+ and Celeron 900 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2944 | 3153 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | 2x Athlon 64 (Desktop) | no data |
| Power efficiency | 0.66 | 0.70 |
| Architecture codename | Windsor (2006−2007) | no data |
| Release date | no data | 1 January 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $350 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4600+ and Celeron 900 basic parameters such as 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | no data |
| Threads | 2 | no data |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | no data |
| Bus rate | 1000 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 256K | no data |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | no data |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 1 MB L2 Cache |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 220 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | 154 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4600+ and Celeron 900 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.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | no data |
| Socket | 939 | PGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4600+ and Celeron 900. 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
Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4600+ and Celeron 900 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 Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4600+ and Celeron 900 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | no data | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
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.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.45 | 0.26 |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 35 Watt |
Athlon 64 X2 4600+ has a 73.1% higher aggregate performance score.
Celeron 900, on the other hand, has a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 85.7% lower power consumption.
The Athlon 64 X2 4600+ is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 900 in performance tests.
Note that Athlon 64 X2 4600+ is a desktop processor while Celeron 900 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 64 X2 4600+ and Celeron 900, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
