Celeron 900 vs M 390
Aggregate performance score
Celeron 900 outperforms Celeron M 390 by a substantial 37% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 390 and Celeron 900 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3241 | 3137 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Celeron M | no data |
| Power efficiency | 0.86 | 0.70 |
| Architecture codename | Dothan (2004−2005) | no data |
| Release date | no data (2024 years ago) | 1 January 2009 (15 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 390 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 | 1 (Single-Core) | no data |
| Threads | 1 | no data |
| Base clock speed | 1.7 GHz | 2.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.7 GHz | no data |
| Bus rate | 400 MHz | no data |
| L3 cache | 1 MB L2 KB | 1 MB L2 Cache |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 45 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 105 °C |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 1.004V-1.292V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 390 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 | PPGA478, H-PBGA479 | PGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 21 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 390 and Celeron 900. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | - | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | - |
| Idle States | - | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| PAE | 32 Bit | no data |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
Security technologies
Celeron M 390 and Celeron 900 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | - |
| EDB | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M 390 and Celeron 900 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | - | - |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.19 | 0.26 |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 21 Watt | 35 Watt |
Celeron M 390 has 66.7% lower power consumption.
Celeron 900, on the other hand, has a 36.8% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The Celeron 900 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M 390 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 390 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.
