E-300 vs Celeron M 900
Aggregate performance score
E-300 outperforms Celeron M 900 by a whopping 163% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 900 and E-300 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3385 | 3199 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron M | AMD E-Series |
| Power efficiency | 0.22 | 1.10 |
| Architecture codename | Penryn (2008−2011) | Zacate (2011−2013) |
| Release date | 1 April 2009 (15 years ago) | 22 August 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $70 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 900 and E-300 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 | 1.3 GHz |
| Bus rate | 800 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 40 nm |
| Die size | 107 mm2 | 75 mm2 |
| 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 E-300 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 | FT1 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 18 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 900 and E-300. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SVM |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M 900 and E-300 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 900 and E-300. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon HD 6310 |
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.
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.
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 | 0.21 |
| Recency | 1 April 2009 | 22 August 2011 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 2 |
| Threads | 1 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 18 Watt |
E-300 has a 162.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 12.5% more advanced lithography process, and 94.4% lower power consumption.
The E-300 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 E-300, 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.
