Athlon II M320 vs Celeron M 900
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 900 and Athlon II M320 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron M | AMD Athlon II |
| Architecture codename | Penryn (2008−2011) | Caspian (2009) |
| Release date | 1 April 2009 (15 years ago) | 10 September 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $70 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 900 and Athlon II M320 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 |
| Boost clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 2.1 GHz |
| Bus rate | 800 MHz | 3200 MHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 107 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 410 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 900 and Athlon II M320 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 | PGA478 | Socket S1 (S1g3) |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 900 and Athlon II M320. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, Enhanced 3DNow!, NX bit, AMD64, PowerNow!, AMD Virtualization |
| PowerNow | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 900 and Athlon II M320. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR2 |
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 1 April 2009 | 10 September 2009 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 2 |
| Threads | 1 | 2 |
Athlon II M320 has an age advantage of 5 months, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
We couldn't decide between Celeron M 900 and Athlon II M320. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 900 and Athlon II M320, 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.
