Celeron M 575 vs Phenom II X4 925
Aggregate performance score
Phenom II X4 925 outperforms Celeron M 575 by a whopping 472% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Phenom II X4 925 and Celeron M 575 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2187 | 3150 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.14 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Celeron M |
| Power efficiency | 1.42 | 0.76 |
| Architecture codename | Deneb (2009−2011) | Merom (2006−2008) |
| Release date | 11 May 2009 (15 years ago) | 1 June 2008 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $160 | $86 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Phenom II X4 925 and Celeron M 575 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 2.8 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 667 MHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 6 MB (shared) | no data |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 65 nm |
| Die size | 258 mm2 | 143 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 758 million | 291 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Phenom II X4 925 and Celeron M 575 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 | 1 | no data |
| Socket | AM3 | PPGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 31 Watt |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Phenom II X4 925 and Celeron M 575 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Phenom II X4 925 and Celeron M 575. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Phenom II X4 925 and Celeron M 575.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.43 | 0.25 |
| Recency | 11 May 2009 | 1 June 2008 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 1 |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 31 Watt |
Phenom II X4 925 has a 472% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 months, 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron M 575, on the other hand, has 206.5% lower power consumption.
The Phenom II X4 925 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M 575 in performance tests.
Note that Phenom II X4 925 is a desktop processor while Celeron M 575 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Phenom II X4 925 and Celeron M 575, 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.
