Athlon II X4 645 vs Celeron M 900

Aggregate performance score

Celeron M 900
2009
1 core / 1 thread, 35 Watt
0.08
Athlon II X4 645
2010
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
1.48
+1750%

Athlon II X4 645 outperforms Celeron M 900 by a whopping 1750% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron M 900 and Athlon II X4 645 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking33852155
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data3.30
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesIntel Celeron Mno data
Power efficiency0.221.47
Architecture codenamePenryn (2008−2011)Propus (2009−2011)
Release date1 April 2009 (15 years ago)21 September 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$70$80

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron M 900 and Athlon II X4 645 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)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads14
Base clock speedno data3.1 GHz
Boost clock speed2.2 GHz3.1 GHz
Bus rate800 MHzno data
L1 cacheno data128 KB (per core)
L2 cache1 MB512 KB (per core)
L3 cacheno data0 KB
Chip lithography45 nm45 nm
Die size107 mm2169 mm2
Maximum core temperature105 °Cno data
Number of transistors410 Million300 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron M 900 and Athlon II X4 645 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 configurationno data1
SocketPGA478AM3
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt95 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 900 and Athlon II X4 645. 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 645. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR3

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron M 900 and Athlon II X4 645.

PCIe versionno data2.0

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


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 II X4 645 1.48
+1750%

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 II X4 645 2348
+1809%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.08 1.48
Recency 1 April 2009 21 September 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 645, on the other hand, has a 1750% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads.

The Athlon II X4 645 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M 900 in performance tests.

Be aware that Celeron M 900 is a notebook processor while Athlon II X4 645 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 900 and Athlon II X4 645, 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 II X4 645
Athlon II X4 645

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
3.8 388 votes

Rate Athlon II X4 645 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 II X4 645, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.