Atom N270 vs Celeron M 900

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron M 900
2009
1 core / 1 thread, 35 Watt
0.08
Atom N270
2008
1 core / 2 threads, 2 Watt
0.09
+12.5%

Atom N270 outperforms Celeron M 900 by a moderate 13% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron M 900 and Atom N270 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking34013395
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel Celeron MIntel Atom
Power efficiency0.223.41
Architecture codenamePenryn (2008−2011)DiamondVille (2008−2009)
Release date1 April 2009 (15 years ago)2 April 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$70$44

Detailed specifications

Celeron M 900 and Atom N270 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)
Threads12
Base clock speedno data1.6 GHz
Boost clock speed2.2 GHz0.1 GHz
Bus typeno dataFSB
Bus rate800 MHz533.33 MT/s
Multiplierno data12
L1 cacheno data56 KB
L2 cache1 MB512 KB
L3 cacheno data0 KB
Chip lithography45 nm45 nm
Die size107 mm225.9638 mm2
Maximum core temperature105 °C90 °C
Number of transistors410 Million47 Million
64 bit support+-
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage rangeno data0.9V-1.1625V

Compatibility

Information on Celeron M 900 and Atom N270 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 (Uniprocessor)
SocketPGA478PBGA437
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt2.5 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 900 and Atom N270. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE, Intel® SSE2, Intel® SSE3, Intel® SSSE3
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data+
Idle Statesno data-
Thermal Monitoring-+
Demand Based Switchingno data-
FSB parityno data-

Security technologies

Celeron M 900 and Atom N270 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M 900 and Atom N270 are enumerated here.

VT-dno data-
VT-xno data-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 900 and Atom N270. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Maximum memory sizeno data8 GB

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
Atom N270 0.09
+12.5%

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
Atom N270 136
+10.6%

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
+288%
Atom N270 541

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
+107%
Atom N270 483

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.08 0.09
Recency 1 April 2009 2 April 2008
Threads 1 2
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 2 Watt

Celeron M 900 has an age advantage of 11 months.

Atom N270, on the other hand, has a 12.5% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more threads, and 1650% lower power consumption.

The Atom N270 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 Atom N270, 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
Intel Atom N270
Atom N270

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
2.7 252 votes

Rate Atom N270 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 Atom N270, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.