Athlon XP 1700+ vs Celeron 900
Primary details
Comparing Celeron 900 and Athlon XP 1700+ processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Architecture codename | no data | Thoroughbred (2001−2002) |
| Release date | 1 January 2009 (15 years ago) | October 2001 (23 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron 900 and Athlon XP 1700+ 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 | no data | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | no data | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 2.2 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1.47 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | no data | 256 KB |
| L3 cache | 1 MB L2 Cache | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 180 nm |
| Die size | no data | 150 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 37 million |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron 900 and Athlon XP 1700+ 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 | no data | 1 |
| Socket | PGA478 | A |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 64 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 900 and Athlon XP 1700+. 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
Celeron 900 and Athlon XP 1700+ 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 Celeron 900 and Athlon XP 1700+ 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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 180 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 64 Watt |
Celeron 900 has a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 82.9% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Celeron 900 and Athlon XP 1700+. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Celeron 900 is a notebook processor while Athlon XP 1700+ is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 900 and Athlon XP 1700+, 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.
