Core 2 Extreme QX9770 vs Celeron M 900
Aggregate performance score
Core 2 Extreme QX9770 outperforms Celeron M 900 by a whopping 3643% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3682 | 1928 |
| 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 | 2.07 |
| Designer | Intel | Intel |
| Architecture codename | Penryn (2008−2011) | Yorkfield (2007−2009) |
| Release date | 1 April 2009 (16 years ago) | March 2008 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $70 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 900 and Core 2 Extreme QX9770 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 | 3.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 800 MHz | 1600 MHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 12 MB (shared) |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 107 mm2 | 2x 107 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 55 °C |
| Number of transistors | 410 Million | 820 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
| VID voltage range | no data | 0.85V-1.3625V |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 900 and Core 2 Extreme QX9770 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 | LGA775 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 1 MB | 136 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 900 and Core 2 Extreme QX9770. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
| FSB parity | no data | - |
Security technologies
Celeron M 900 and Core 2 Extreme QX9770 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M 900 and Core 2 Extreme QX9770 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 900 and Core 2 Extreme QX9770. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.07 | 2.62 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 4 |
| Threads | 1 | 4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 1 Watt | 136 Watt |
Celeron M 900 has 13500% lower power consumption.
Core 2 Extreme QX9770, on the other hand, has a 3642.9% higher aggregate performance score, and 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads.
The Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770 is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Celeron M 900 in performance tests.
Be aware that Celeron M 900 is a notebook processor while Core 2 Extreme QX9770 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
