Athlon II X4 640 vs Celeron M 900
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 900 and Athlon II X4 640 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 2199 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 2.92 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Celeron M | no data |
| Power efficiency | no data | 1.40 |
| Architecture codename | Penryn (2008−2011) | Propus (2009−2011) |
| Release date | 1 April 2009 (15 years ago) | 11 May 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $70 | $80 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 900 and Athlon II X4 640 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) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 3 GHz |
| Bus rate | 800 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 107 mm2 | 169 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 410 Million | 300 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 900 and Athlon II X4 640 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.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | no data | 1 |
| Socket | PGA478 | AM3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 95 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 900 and Athlon II X4 640. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 900 and Athlon II X4 640. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron M 900 and Athlon II X4 640.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 1 April 2009 | 11 May 2010 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 4 |
| Threads | 1 | 4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 95 Watt |
Celeron M 900 has 171.4% lower power consumption.
Athlon II X4 640, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads.
We couldn't decide between Celeron M 900 and Athlon II X4 640. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Celeron M 900 is a notebook processor while Athlon II X4 640 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 900 and Athlon II X4 640, 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.
