FX-4350 vs Celeron M 900

Aggregate performance score

Celeron M 900
2009
1 core / 1 thread, 35 Watt
0.08
FX-4350
2013
4 cores / 4 threads, 125 Watt
2.09
+2513%

FX-4350 outperforms Celeron M 900 by a whopping 2513% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron M 900 and FX-4350 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking33851876
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesIntel Celeron Mno data
Power efficiency0.221.58
Architecture codenamePenryn (2008−2011)Vishera (2012−2015)
Release date1 April 2009 (15 years ago)29 April 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$70no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron M 900 and FX-4350 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 data4.2 GHz
Boost clock speed2.2 GHz4.3 GHz
Bus rate800 MHzno data
L2 cache1 MB4096 KB
Chip lithography45 nm32 nm
Die size107 mm2315 mm2
Maximum core temperature105 °C61 °C
Number of transistors410 Million1,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier-+
P0 Vcore voltageno dataMin: 1.275 V - Max: 1.4 V

Compatibility

Information on Celeron M 900 and FX-4350 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
SocketPGA478AM3+
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt125 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 900 and FX-4350. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI-+
FMA-+
AVX-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M 900 and FX-4350 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 900 and FX-4350. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR3

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron M 900 and FX-4350.

PCIe versionno datan/a

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
FX-4350 2.09
+2513%

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
FX-4350 3321
+2600%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.08 2.09
Recency 1 April 2009 29 April 2013
Physical cores 1 4
Threads 1 4
Chip lithography 45 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 125 Watt

Celeron M 900 has 257.1% lower power consumption.

FX-4350, on the other hand, has a 2512.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 40.6% more advanced lithography process.

The FX-4350 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M 900 in performance tests.

Be aware that Celeron M 900 is a notebook processor while FX-4350 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 900 and FX-4350, 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 FX-4350
FX-4350

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
3.8 546 votes

Rate FX-4350 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 FX-4350, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.