Athlon 64 2600+ vs Celeron M 900

Primary details

Comparing Celeron M 900 and Athlon 64 2600+ processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the rankingnot ratednot rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesIntel Celeron Mno data
Architecture codenamePenryn (2008−2011)Lima (2008−2009)
Release date1 April 2009 (15 years ago)January 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$70no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron M 900 and Athlon 64 2600+ 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)1 (Single-Core)
Threads11
Boost clock speed2.2 GHz1.6 GHz
Bus rate800 MHzno data
L1 cacheno data128 KB
L2 cache1 MB512 KB
L3 cacheno data0 KB
Chip lithography45 nm65 nm
Die size107 mm277 mm2
Maximum core temperature105 °Cno data
Number of transistors410 Million122 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron M 900 and Athlon 64 2600+ 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 configurationno data1
SocketPGA478AM2
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 900 and Athlon 64 2600+. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+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.

Celeron M 900 123
Athlon 64 2600+ 243
+97.6%

Pros & cons summary


Chip lithography 45 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 15 Watt

Celeron M 900 has a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.

Athlon 64 2600+, on the other hand, has 133.3% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Celeron M 900 and Athlon 64 2600+. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Celeron M 900 is a notebook processor while Athlon 64 2600+ is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 900 and Athlon 64 2600+, 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 900
Celeron M 900
AMD Athlon 64 2600+
Athlon 64 2600+

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.


2.8 21 vote

Rate Celeron M 900 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 1 vote

Rate Athlon 64 2600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron M 900 or Athlon 64 2600+, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.