FX-7600P vs Celeron M 900

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron M 900
2009
1 core / 1 thread, 35 Watt
0.08
FX-7600P
2014
4 cores / 4 threads, 35 Watt
1.63
+1938%

FX-7600P outperforms Celeron M 900 by a whopping 1938% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron M 900 and FX-7600P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking33862081
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel Celeron MAMD Kaveri
Power efficiency0.224.41
Architecture codenamePenryn (2008−2011)Kaveri (2014−2015)
Release date1 April 2009 (15 years ago)4 June 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$70no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron M 900 and FX-7600P 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 data2.7 GHz
Boost clock speed2.2 GHz3.6 GHz
Bus rate800 MHzBGA (FP3)
L2 cache1 MB4096 KB
Chip lithography45 nm28 nm
Die size107 mm2245 mm2
Maximum core temperature105 °C105 °C
Number of transistors410 Million2,410 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron M 900 and FX-7600P 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
SocketPGA478FP3
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 900 and FX-7600P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno data86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX, FMA
AES-NI-+
FMA-+
AVX-+
FRTC-+
TrueAudio-+
PowerNow-+
PowerGating-+
Out-of-band client management-+
VirusProtect-+
HSA-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M 900 and FX-7600P are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
IOMMU 2.0-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 900 and FX-7600P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR3-2133
Max memory channelsno data2

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon R7 Graphics
iGPU core countno data8
Enduro-+
Switchable graphics-+
UVD-+
VCE-+

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron M 900 and FX-7600P integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Celeron M 900 and FX-7600P integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno dataDirectX® 12
Vulkan-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron M 900 and FX-7600P.

PCIe versionno data3.0
PCI Express lanesno data8

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-7600P 1.63
+1938%

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-7600P 2582
+1999%

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
FX-7600P 2555
+21.6%

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
FX-7600P 3569
+257%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.08 1.63
Recency 1 April 2009 4 June 2014
Physical cores 1 4
Threads 1 4
Chip lithography 45 nm 28 nm

FX-7600P has a 1937.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 60.7% more advanced lithography process.

The FX-7600P 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 FX-7600P, 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-7600P
FX-7600P

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
4.2 11 votes

Rate FX-7600P 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-7600P, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.