A6-9225 vs Celeron M 575

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron M 575
2008
1 core / 1 thread, 31 Watt
0.25
A6-9225
2018
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
0.84
+236%

A6-9225 outperforms Celeron M 575 by a whopping 236% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron M 575 and A6-9225 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking31652585
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel Celeron MAMD Bristol Ridge
Power efficiency0.765.30
Architecture codenameMerom (2006−2008)Stoney Ridge (2016−2019)
Release date1 June 2008 (16 years ago)1 June 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$86no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron M 575 and A6-9225 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 cores1 (Single-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads12
Base clock speedno data2.6 GHz
Boost clock speed2 GHz3.1 GHz
Bus rate667 MHzno data
L1 cacheno data160 KB
L2 cache1 MB1 MB
Chip lithography65 nm28 nm
Die size143 mm2124.5 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °C90 °C
Number of transistors291 Million1200 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron M 575 and A6-9225 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.

SocketPPGA478BGA
Power consumption (TDP)31 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 575 and A6-9225. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataMMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, BMI2, ABM, TBM, FMA4, XOP, SMEP, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND
AES-NI-+
FMA-+
AVX-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 575 and A6-9225. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR4

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon R4 (Stoney Ridge) ( - 686 MHz)

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.

Celeron M 575 0.25
A6-9225 0.84
+236%

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

Celeron M 575 1917
A6-9225 2532
+32.1%

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

Celeron M 575 1917
A6-9225 4193
+119%

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.

Celeron M 575 898
A6-9225 2132
+137%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.25 0.84
Recency 1 June 2008 1 June 2018
Physical cores 1 2
Threads 1 2
Chip lithography 65 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 31 Watt 15 Watt

A6-9225 has a 236% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 106.7% lower power consumption.

The A6-9225 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M 575 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 575 and A6-9225, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Celeron M 575
Celeron M 575
AMD A6-9225
A6-9225

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.4 9 votes

Rate Celeron M 575 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 2301 vote

Rate A6-9225 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron M 575 or A6-9225, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.