Athlon 64 TF-20 vs Celeron M 900
Aggregate performance score
Athlon 64 TF-20 outperforms Celeron M 900 by a whopping 100% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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 ranking | 3385 | 3280 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron M | AMD Athlon 64 |
| Power efficiency | 0.22 | 0.61 |
| Architecture codename | Penryn (2008−2011) | Sherman (2009) |
| Release date | 1 April 2009 (15 years ago) | 1 May 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $70 | no 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 cores | 1 (Single-Core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 1 |
| Boost clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 1.6 GHz |
| Bus rate | 800 MHz | 667 MHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 0.1 MB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 512 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 65 nm |
| Die size | 107 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | 95 °C |
| Number of transistors | 410 Million | no 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.
| Socket | PGA478 | S1g1 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 25 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 extensions | no data | MMX, 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.
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.08 | 0.16 |
| 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 a 100% higher aggregate performance score, and 40% lower power consumption.
The Athlon 64 TF-20 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M 900 in performance tests.
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.
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.
