Celeron M 383 vs M 925
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 925 and Celeron M 383 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron M | Celeron M |
| Architecture codename | Penryn (2008−2011) | Dothan (2004−2005) |
| Release date | 1 January 2011 (13 years ago) | no data (2024 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $70 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 925 and Celeron M 383 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) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 1 |
| Boost clock speed | 2.3 GHz | 1 GHz |
| Bus rate | 800 MHz | 400 MHz |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 90 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 925 and Celeron M 383 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 | 5 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 925 and Celeron M 383. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 5 Watt |
Celeron M 925 has a 100% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron M 383, on the other hand, has 600% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Celeron M 925 and Celeron M 383. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 925 and Celeron M 383, 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.
