Athlon 64 TF-20 vs Celeron M 900

VS

Primary details

Comparing Celeron M 900 and Athlon 64 TF-20 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the rankingnot ratednot rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel Celeron MAMD Athlon 64
Architecture codenamePenryn (2008−2011)Sherman (2009)
Release date1 April 2009 (15 years ago)1 May 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$70no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron M 900 and Athlon 64 TF-20 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 cores1 (Single-Core)1 (Single-Core)
Threads11
Boost clock speed2.2 GHz1.6 GHz
Bus rate800 MHz667 MHz
L1 cacheno data0.1 MB
L2 cache1 MB512 KB
Chip lithography45 nm65 nm
Die size107 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature105 °C95 °C
Number of transistors410 Millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron M 900 and Athlon 64 TF-20 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.

SocketPGA478S1g1
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt25 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 900 and Athlon 64 TF-20. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataMMX, 3DNow!, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, AMD64, Enhanced Virus Protection
VirusProtect-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+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.



Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

Celeron M 900 2101
+68.8%
Athlon 64 TF-20 1245

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

Celeron M 900 1000
+63.4%
Athlon 64 TF-20 612

Pros & cons summary


Chip lithography 45 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 25 Watt

Celeron M 900 has a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.

Athlon 64 TF-20, on the other hand, has 40% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Celeron M 900 and Athlon 64 TF-20. We've got no test results to judge.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 900 and Athlon 64 TF-20, 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.


Intel Celeron M 900
Celeron M 900
AMD Athlon 64 TF-20
Athlon 64 TF-20

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.


2.8 21 vote

Rate Celeron M 900 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 34 votes

Rate Athlon 64 TF-20 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron M 900 or Athlon 64 TF-20, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.