Celeron M 450 vs Phenom II X6 1075T
Aggregate performance score
Phenom II X6 1075T outperforms Celeron M 450 by a whopping 1443% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Phenom II X6 1075T and Celeron M 450 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1845 | 3313 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.21 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Celeron M |
| Power efficiency | 1.64 | 0.49 |
| Architecture codename | Thuban (2010) | Yonah (2005−2006) |
| Release date | 21 September 2010 (14 years ago) | no data (2024 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $260 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Phenom II X6 1075T and Celeron M 450 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 | 6 (Hexa-Core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 6 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 3 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 533 MHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | no data |
| L3 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 1 MB L2 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 65 nm |
| Die size | 346 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 904 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 1.0V-1.3V |
Compatibility
Information on Phenom II X6 1075T and Celeron M 450 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 | no data |
| Socket | AM3 | PPGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 27 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Phenom II X6 1075T and Celeron M 450. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | - |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
| PAE | no data | 32 Bit |
| FSB parity | no data | - |
Security technologies
Phenom II X6 1075T and Celeron M 450 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 Phenom II X6 1075T and Celeron M 450 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | no data | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Phenom II X6 1075T and Celeron M 450. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Phenom II X6 1075T and Celeron M 450.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | no data |
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.16 | 0.14 |
| Physical cores | 6 | 1 |
| Threads | 6 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 27 Watt |
Phenom II X6 1075T has a 1442.9% higher aggregate performance score, 500% more physical cores and 500% more threads, and a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron M 450, on the other hand, has 363% lower power consumption.
The Phenom II X6 1075T is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M 450 in performance tests.
Note that Phenom II X6 1075T is a desktop processor while Celeron M 450 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Phenom II X6 1075T and Celeron M 450, 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.
