Celeron 900 vs M 575
Aggregate performance score
Celeron 900 outperforms Celeron M 575 by a minimal 4% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 575 and Celeron 900 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3167 | 3157 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron M | no data |
| Power efficiency | 0.77 | 0.71 |
| Architecture codename | Merom (2006−2008) | no data |
| Release date | 1 June 2008 (16 years ago) | 1 January 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $86 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 575 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 | 1 (Single-Core) | no data |
| Threads | 1 | no data |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2 GHz | no data |
| Bus rate | 667 MHz | no data |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | no data |
| L3 cache | no data | 1 MB L2 Cache |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 143 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | 291 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 575 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.
| Socket | PPGA478 | PGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 31 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 575 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
Celeron M 575 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 Celeron M 575 and Celeron 900 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | no data | - |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.25 | 0.26 |
| Recency | 1 June 2008 | 1 January 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 31 Watt | 35 Watt |
Celeron M 575 has 12.9% lower power consumption.
Celeron 900, on the other hand, has a 4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 months, and a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Celeron M 575 and Celeron 900.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 575 and Celeron 900, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
