Celeron P4500 vs i7-920XM

VS

Aggregate performance score

Core i7-920XM
2009
4 cores / 8 threads, 55 Watt
1.23
+132%
Celeron P4500
2010
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.53

Core i7-920XM outperforms Celeron P4500 by a whopping 132% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i7-920XM and Celeron P4500 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking23212856
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel Core i7Intel Celeron
Power efficiency2.111.43
Architecture codenameClarksfield (2009−2010)Westmere (2010−2011)
Release date23 September 2009 (15 years ago)28 March 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,054no data

Detailed specifications

Core i7-920XM and Celeron P4500 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads82
Base clock speed2 GHz1.86 GHz
Boost clock speed3.2 GHz0.07 GHz
Bus typeno dataDMI 1.0
Bus rate2500 MHz1 × 2.5 GT/s
Multiplierno data14
L1 cache64 KB (per core)128 KB
L2 cache256 KB (per core)512 KB
L3 cache8 MB (shared)2 MB
Chip lithography45 nm32 nm
Die size296 mm281 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °C90 °C
Number of transistors774 million382 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on Core i7-920XM and Celeron P4500 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 configuration11 (Uniprocessor)
SocketFCPGA988,PGA988PGA988
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i7-920XM and Celeron P4500. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.2no data
FMA-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology+-
Hyper-Threading Technology+-
Idle States++
Thermal Monitoring++
Flex Memory Accessno data+
Demand Based Switching-no data
PAE36 Bit36 Bit
FDIno data+
Fast Memory Accessno data+

Security technologies

Core i7-920XM and Celeron P4500 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+-
EDB++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i7-920XM and Celeron P4500 are enumerated here.

VT-d+-
VT-x++
EPT++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i7-920XM and Celeron P4500. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3-1066, DDR3-1333DDR3-800, DDR3-1066
Maximum memory size8 GB8 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidth21 GB/s17.051 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardNoneIntel HD Graphics for Previous Generation Intel Processors
Clear Videono data+
Graphics max frequencyno data667 MHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Core i7-920XM and Celeron P4500 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data2

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i7-920XM and Celeron P4500.

PCIe version22.0
PCI Express lanes1616

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.

i7-920XM 1.23
+132%
Celeron P4500 0.53

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.

i7-920XM 1950
+130%
Celeron P4500 848

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.23 0.53
Recency 23 September 2009 28 March 2010
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 8 2
Chip lithography 45 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 35 Watt

i7-920XM has a 132.1% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads.

Celeron P4500, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 months, a 40.6% more advanced lithography process, and 57.1% lower power consumption.

The Core i7-920XM is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron P4500 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i7-920XM and Celeron P4500, 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 i7-920XM
Core i7-920XM
Intel Celeron P4500
Celeron P4500

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.


4.6 25 votes

Rate Core i7-920XM on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 8 votes

Rate Celeron P4500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i7-920XM or Celeron P4500, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.