i9-14900 vs Celeron 1007U
Aggregate performance score
Core i9-14900 outperforms Celeron 1007U by a whopping 5615% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron 1007U and Core i9-14900 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2846 | 134 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 50.06 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Celeron | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.95 | 44.09 |
| Architecture codename | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) | Raptor Lake-R (2023−2024) |
| Release date | 20 January 2013 (11 years ago) | 8 January 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $86 | $549 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron 1007U and Core i9-14900 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) | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | 1.5 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.5 GHz | 5.6 GHz |
| Bus type | DMI | no data |
| Bus rate | 5 GT/s | 219 MHz |
| Multiplier | 15 | no data |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 2 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 2 MB (shared) | 36 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | Intel 7 nm |
| Die size | 118 mm2 | 257 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | 100 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 105 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron 1007U and Core i9-14900 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 | 1 |
| Socket | FCBGA1023 | FCLGA1700 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 17 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 1007U and Core i9-14900. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| My WiFi | - | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Idle States | + | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | + |
| Flex Memory Access | + | no data |
| SIPP | - | + |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | + |
| FDI | + | no data |
| Fast Memory Access | + | no data |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
Celeron 1007U and Core i9-14900 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | + |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
| Anti-Theft | - | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 1007U and Core i9-14900 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | - | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 1007U and Core i9-14900. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR5-5600, DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | 32 GB | 192 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 89.6 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel® HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel® Processors | Intel UHD Graphics 770 |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Clear Video HD | - | + |
| Graphics max frequency | 1 GHz | 1.65 GHz |
| Execution Units | no data | 32 |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron 1007U and Core i9-14900 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 3 | 4 |
| eDP | + | no data |
| DisplayPort | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
| SDVO | + | no data |
| CRT | + | no data |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Celeron 1007U and Core i9-14900 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | no data | 4096 x 2160 @ 60Hz |
| Max resolution over eDP | no data | 5120 x 3200 @ 120Hz |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | no data | 7680 x 4320 @ 60Hz |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Celeron 1007U and Core i9-14900 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 12 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 1007U and Core i9-14900.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 5.0 and 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | 16 |
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.
3DMark06 CPU
3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.55 | 31.43 |
| Recency | 20 January 2013 | 8 January 2024 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 24 |
| Threads | 2 | 32 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 17 Watt | 65 Watt |
Celeron 1007U has 282.4% lower power consumption.
i9-14900, on the other hand, has a 5614.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and 1100% more physical cores and 1500% more threads.
The Core i9-14900 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 1007U in performance tests.
Be aware that Celeron 1007U is a notebook processor while Core i9-14900 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 1007U and Core i9-14900, 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.
