Celeron 925 vs M 530
Aggregate performance score
Celeron 925 outperforms Celeron M 530 by a considerable 44% 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 | 3519 | 3417 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Celeron M | no data |
| Power efficiency | no data | 0.80 |
| Designer | Intel | Intel |
| Architecture codename | Merom (2006−2008) | no data |
| Release date | no data | 1 January 2011 (14 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 530 and Celeron 925 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 | 1 (Single-Core) | no data |
| Threads | 1 | no data |
| Base clock speed | 1.73 GHz | 2.3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.73 GHz | no data |
| Bus rate | 533 MHz | no data |
| L3 cache | 1 MB L2 Cache | 1 MB L2 Cache |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 105 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 0.95V-1.3V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 530 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.
| Socket | PBGA479,PPGA478 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 530 and Celeron 925. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | - | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | - |
| Idle States | - | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
Security technologies
Celeron M 530 and Celeron 925 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | - |
| EDB | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M 530 and Celeron 925 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | - | - |
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 | 0.18 | 0.26 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 35 Watt |
Celeron M 530 has 16.7% lower power consumption.
Celeron 925, on the other hand, has a 44.4% higher aggregate performance score, and a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.
The Intel Celeron 925 is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Celeron M 530 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.
