Celeron 900 vs Athlon II Neo K325

VS

Aggregate performance score

Athlon II Neo K325
2010
2 cores / 2 threads, 12 Watt
0.26

Primary details

Comparing Athlon II Neo K325 and Celeron 900 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking31503152
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD Athlon II Neono data
Power efficiency2.050.70
Architecture codenameGeneva (2010)no data
Release date12 May 2010 (14 years ago)1 January 2009 (15 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Athlon II Neo K325 and Celeron 900 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 cores2 (Dual-core)no data
Threads2no data
Base clock speedno data2.2 GHz
Boost clock speed1.3 GHzno data
Bus rate2000 MHzno data
L1 cache256 KBno data
L2 cache1 MBno data
L3 cacheno data1 MB L2 Cache
Chip lithography45 nm45 nm
Maximum core temperatureno data105 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Athlon II Neo K325 and Celeron 900 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.

SocketS1PGA478
Power consumption (TDP)12 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon II Neo K325 and Celeron 900. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsSSE4A, AMD64, Enhanced Virus Protection, Virtualization, PowerNow, HyperTransport 3.0no data
PowerNow+-
VirusProtect+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data-
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-

Security technologies

Athlon II Neo K325 and Celeron 900 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon II Neo K325 and Celeron 900 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-xno data-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon II Neo K325 and Celeron 900. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3no 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.

Athlon II Neo K325 0.26
Celeron 900 0.26

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.

Athlon II Neo K325 417
+1.2%
Celeron 900 412

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Athlon II Neo K325 158
Celeron 900 220
+39.2%

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Athlon II Neo K325 287
+22.6%
Celeron 900 234

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Recency 12 May 2010 1 January 2009
Power consumption (TDP) 12 Watt 35 Watt

Athlon II Neo K325 has an age advantage of 1 year, and 191.7% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Athlon II Neo K325 and Celeron 900.


Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon II Neo K325 and Celeron 900, 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.


AMD Athlon II Neo K325
Athlon II Neo K325
Intel Celeron 900
Celeron 900

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.


3.8 9 votes

Rate Athlon II Neo K325 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.4 56 votes

Rate Celeron 900 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Athlon II Neo K325 or Celeron 900, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.