A9-9420 vs Celeron M 900
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 900 and A9-9420 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | not rated | 2397 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron M | AMD Bristol Ridge |
| Architecture codename | Penryn (2008−2011) | Stoney Ridge (2016−2019) |
| Release date | 1 April 2009 (15 years ago) | 31 May 2016 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $70 | no data |
| Current price | $379 (5.4x MSRP) | $440 |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 900 and A9-9420 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) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 1 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| Bus support | 800 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 160 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 1 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 28 nm |
| Die size | 107 mm2 | 125 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 90 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 74 °C |
| Number of transistors | 410 Million | 1,200 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 900 and A9-9420 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 | FT4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 900 and A9-9420. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Single-Channel DDR4-2133, Virtualization, |
| AES-NI | no data | + |
| FMA | no data | + |
| AVX | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M 900 and A9-9420 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 900 and A9-9420. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Radeon R5 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron M 900 and A9-9420.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 8 |
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
A9-9420 outperforms Celeron M 900 by 1120% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 20%
A9-9420 outperforms Celeron M 900 by 37% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 1 April 2009 | 31 May 2016 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 2 |
| Threads | 1 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 15 Watt |
We couldn't decide between Celeron M 900 and A9-9420. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 900 and A9-9420, 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.
