Phenom X3 8750 vs Celeron M 900

Primary details

Comparing Celeron M 900 and Phenom X3 8750 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the rankingnot rated2521
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesIntel Celeron Mno data
Power efficiencyno data0.90
Architecture codenamePenryn (2008−2011)Toliman (2008)
Release date1 April 2009 (15 years ago)April 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$70no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron M 900 and Phenom X3 8750 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)3 (Tri-Core)
Threads13
Boost clock speed2.2 GHz2.4 GHz
Bus rate800 MHzno data
L1 cacheno data128 KB (per core)
L2 cache1 MB512 KB (per core)
L3 cacheno data2 MB (shared)
Chip lithography45 nm65 nm
Die size107 mm2285 mm2
Maximum core temperature105 °Cno data
Number of transistors410 Million450 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron M 900 and Phenom X3 8750 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
SocketPGA478AM2+
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt95 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 900 and Phenom X3 8750. 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 Phenom X3 8750 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+

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.

Celeron M 900 123
Phenom X3 8750 1445
+1075%

Pros & cons summary


Physical cores 1 3
Threads 1 3
Chip lithography 45 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 95 Watt

Celeron M 900 has a 44.4% more advanced lithography process, and 171.4% lower power consumption.

Phenom X3 8750, on the other hand, has 200% more physical cores and 200% more threads.

We couldn't decide between Celeron M 900 and Phenom X3 8750. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Celeron M 900 is a notebook processor while Phenom X3 8750 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 900 and Phenom X3 8750, 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 Phenom X3 8750
Phenom X3 8750

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
3.2 70 votes

Rate Phenom X3 8750 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 Phenom X3 8750, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.