Celeron M 550 vs Core 2 Extreme X9000

Aggregate performance score

Core 2 Extreme X9000
2008
2 cores / 2 threads, 44 Watt
0.69
+138%
Celeron M 550
1 core / 1 thread, 30 Watt
0.29

Core 2 Extreme X9000 outperforms Celeron M 550 by a whopping 138% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Extreme X9000 and Celeron M 550 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking27113109
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel Core 2 ExtremeCeleron M
Power efficiency1.480.91
Architecture codenamePenryn (2008−2011)Merom (2006−2008)
Release date10 January 2008 (16 years ago)no data (2024 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$851no data

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Extreme X9000 and Celeron M 550 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 cores2 (Dual-core)1 (Single-Core)
Threads21
Base clock speed2.8 GHzno data
Boost clock speed2.8 GHz2 GHz
Bus rate800 MHz533 MHz
L1 cache128 KBno data
L2 cache6 MBno data
L3 cache6 MB L2 Cacheno data
Chip lithography45 nm65 nm
Die size107 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature105 °Cno data
Number of transistors410 Millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage range1V-1.275Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Extreme X9000 and Celeron M 550 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.

SocketPGA478no data
Power consumption (TDP)44 Watt30 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Extreme X9000 and Celeron M 550. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Demand Based Switching-no data
FSB parity-no data

Security technologies

Core 2 Extreme X9000 and Celeron M 550 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-no data
EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Extreme X9000 and Celeron M 550 are enumerated here.

VT-x+no data

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.

Core 2 Extreme X9000 0.69
+138%
Celeron M 550 0.29

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.

Core 2 Extreme X9000 1099
+136%
Celeron M 550 465

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.

Core 2 Extreme X9000 3072
+67.5%
Celeron M 550 1834

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.

Core 2 Extreme X9000 2549
+191%
Celeron M 550 877

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.69 0.29
Physical cores 2 1
Threads 2 1
Chip lithography 45 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 44 Watt 30 Watt

Core 2 Extreme X9000 has a 137.9% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.

Celeron M 550, on the other hand, has 46.7% lower power consumption.

The Core 2 Extreme X9000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M 550 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Extreme X9000 and Celeron M 550, 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 Core 2 Extreme X9000
Core 2 Extreme X9000
Intel Celeron M 550
Celeron M 550

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.


3.7 40 votes

Rate Core 2 Extreme X9000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 28 votes

Rate Celeron M 550 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core 2 Extreme X9000 or Celeron M 550, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.