Celeron N4100 vs M 900

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron M 900
2009
1 core / 1 thread, 35 Watt
0.08
Celeron N4100
2017
4 cores / 4 threads, 6 Watt
1.54
+1825%

Celeron N4100 outperforms Celeron M 900 by a whopping 1825% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron M 900 and Celeron N4100 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking34012132
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel Celeron MIntel Celeron
Power efficiency0.2224.31
Architecture codenamePenryn (2008−2011)Goldmont Plus (2017)
Release date1 April 2009 (15 years ago)11 December 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$70$107

Detailed specifications

Celeron M 900 and Celeron N4100 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)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads14
Base clock speedno data1.1 GHz
Boost clock speed2.2 GHz2.4 GHz
Bus rate800 MHzno data
Multiplierno data11
L1 cacheno data256 KB
L2 cache1 MB4 MB
L3 cacheno data4 MB
Chip lithography45 nm14 nm
Die size107 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature105 °C105 deg C
Number of transistors410 Millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on Celeron M 900 and Celeron N4100 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 (Uniprocessor)
SocketPGA478FCBGA1090
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt6 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 900 and Celeron N4100. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.2
AES-NI-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Speed Shiftno data-
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Smart Responseno data-
GPIOno data+
Turbo Boost Max 3.0no data-

Security technologies

Celeron M 900 and Celeron N4100 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDBno data+
Secure Keyno data+
MPX-+
Identity Protection-+
SGXno dataYes with Intel® ME
OS Guardno data+
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M 900 and Celeron N4100 are enumerated here.

VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 900 and Celeron N4100. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR4
Maximum memory sizeno data8 GB
Max memory channelsno data2
Maximum memory bandwidthno data38.397 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataIntel UHD Graphics 600
Max video memoryno data8 GB
Quick Sync Video-+
Graphics max frequencyno data700 MHz
Execution Unitsno data12

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron M 900 and Celeron N4100 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data3
eDPno data+
DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+
MIPI-DSIno data+

Graphics image quality

Maximum display resolutions supported by Celeron M 900 and Celeron N4100 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.

4K resolution supportno data+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Celeron M 900 and Celeron N4100 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno data12
OpenGLno data4.4

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron M 900 and Celeron N4100.

PCIe versionno data2.0
PCI Express lanesno data6
USB revisionno data2.0/3.0
Total number of SATA portsno data2
Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Portsno data2
Number of USB portsno data8
Integrated LANno data-
UARTno 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.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Celeron M 900 0.08
Celeron N4100 1.54
+1825%

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
Celeron N4100 2453
+1894%

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.

Celeron M 900 2101
+4.4%
Celeron N4100 2013

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.

Celeron M 900 1000
Celeron N4100 2805
+181%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.08 1.54
Recency 1 April 2009 11 December 2017
Physical cores 1 4
Threads 1 4
Chip lithography 45 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 6 Watt

Celeron N4100 has a 1825% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 483.3% lower power consumption.

The Celeron N4100 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M 900 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 900 and Celeron N4100, 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
Intel Celeron N4100
Celeron N4100

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
3.5 432 votes

Rate Celeron N4100 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 Celeron N4100, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.