Celeron 1000M vs Phenom II X2 550
Aggregate performance score
Phenom II X2 550 outperforms Celeron 1000M by a small 7% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Phenom II X2 550 and Celeron 1000M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2566 | 2616 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.55 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Celeron |
| Architecture codename | Callisto (2009−2010) | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) |
| Release date | November 2009 (14 years ago) | 20 January 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $133 | $86 |
| Current price | $21 (0.2x MSRP) | $219 (2.5x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Phenom II X2 550 and Celeron 1000M 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 1.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.1 GHz | 1.8 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 256K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 2 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | 258 mm2 | 118 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | 758 million | 1,400 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Phenom II X2 550 and Celeron 1000M 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 | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | AM3 | FCPGA988 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Phenom II X2 550 and Celeron 1000M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 |
| AES-NI | no data | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| My WiFi | no data | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | no data | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | + |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
| FDI | no data | + |
| Fast Memory Access | no data | + |
| Status | no data | Discontinued |
Security technologies
Phenom II X2 550 and Celeron 1000M technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Anti-Theft | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Phenom II X2 550 and Celeron 1000M are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Phenom II X2 550 and Celeron 1000M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 32 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 25.6 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | no data | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel® HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel® Processors |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1 GHz |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Phenom II X2 550 and Celeron 1000M integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
| eDP | no data | + |
| DisplayPort | no data | + |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| SDVO | no data | + |
| CRT | no data | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Phenom II X2 550 and Celeron 1000M.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
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.
Phenom II X2 550 outperforms Celeron 1000M by 7% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Phenom II X2 550 outperforms Celeron 1000M by 8% in Passmark.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.75 | 0.70 |
| Cost | $133 | $86 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 35 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Phenom II X2 550 and Celeron 1000M.
Note that Phenom II X2 550 is a desktop processor while Celeron 1000M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Phenom II X2 550 and Celeron 1000M, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
