Celeron 900 vs Athlon X2 L310
Aggregate performance score
Celeron 900 outperforms Athlon X2 L310 by a significant 24% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Athlon X2 L310 and Celeron 900 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3213 | 3137 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | 2x AMD Athlon | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.53 | 0.70 |
| Architecture codename | Conesus (2009) | no data |
| Release date | 10 September 2009 (15 years ago) | 1 January 2009 (15 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Athlon X2 L310 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 cores | 2 (Dual-core) | no data |
| Threads | 2 | no data |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.2 GHz | no data |
| Bus rate | 800 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 256 KB | no data |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | no data |
| L3 cache | no data | 1 MB L2 Cache |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 95 °C | 105 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon X2 L310 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.
| Socket | BGA / 638 lidless micro-PGA | PGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 13 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon X2 L310 and Celeron 900. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX, 3DNow, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, AMD64, Virtualization, Enhanced Virus Protection | no data |
| VirusProtect | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
Security technologies
Athlon X2 L310 and Celeron 900 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 Athlon X2 L310 and Celeron 900 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-x | 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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.21 | 0.26 |
| Recency | 10 September 2009 | 1 January 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 13 Watt | 35 Watt |
Athlon X2 L310 has an age advantage of 8 months, and 169.2% lower power consumption.
Celeron 900, on the other hand, has a 23.8% higher aggregate performance score, and a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.
The Celeron 900 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon X2 L310 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon X2 L310 and Celeron 900, 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.
