Athlon II X4 641 vs Celeron M 900
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 900 and Athlon II X4 641 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 2167 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Celeron M | no data |
| Power efficiency | no data | 1.38 |
| Architecture codename | Penryn (2008−2011) | Llano (2011−2012) |
| Release date | 1 April 2009 (15 years ago) | 6 February 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $70 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 900 and Athlon II X4 641 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) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 2.8 GHz |
| Bus rate | 800 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 107 mm2 | 228 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 410 Million | 1,178 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 900 and Athlon II X4 641 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 | FM1 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 100 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 900 and Athlon II X4 641. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M 900 and Athlon II X4 641 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 900 and Athlon II X4 641. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 |
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 1 April 2009 | 6 February 2012 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 4 |
| Threads | 1 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 100 Watt |
Celeron M 900 has 185.7% lower power consumption.
Athlon II X4 641, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 40.6% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Celeron M 900 and Athlon II X4 641. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Celeron M 900 is a notebook processor while Athlon II X4 641 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 900 and Athlon II X4 641, 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.
