Athlon 64 X2 TK-53 vs Celeron M 900

Place in the ranking	3400	3058
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Series	Intel Celeron M	2x Athlon 64
Power efficiency	0.22	1.07
Architecture codename	Penryn (2008−2011)	Hawk-256
Release date	1 April 2009 (15 years ago)	no data
Launch price (MSRP)	$70	no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron M 900 and Athlon 64 X2 TK-53 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)	2 (Dual-core)
Threads	1	2
Boost clock speed	2.2 GHz	1.7 GHz
Bus rate	800 MHz	667 MHz
L2 cache	1 MB	no data
Chip lithography	45 nm	65 nm
Die size	107 mm²	no data
Maximum core temperature	105 °C	no data
Number of transistors	410 Million	no data
64 bit support	+	+
Windows 11 compatibility	-	-

Compatibility

Information on Celeron M 900 and Athlon 64 X2 TK-53 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	no data
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	31 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 900 and Athlon 64 X2 TK-53. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

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.

Celeron M 900 0.08

Athlon 64 X2 TK-53 0.35
+338%

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.

Celeron M 900 123

Athlon 64 X2 TK-53 558
+354%

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

Athlon 64 X2 TK-53 1187
+18.7%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.08	0.35
Physical cores	1	2
Threads	1	2
Chip lithography	45 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	31 Watt

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

Athlon 64 X2 TK-53, on the other hand, has a 337.5% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and 12.9% lower power consumption.

The Athlon 64 X2 TK-53 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 X2 TK-53, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.