Celeron 1017U vs Phenom II X4 P920

Aggregate performance score

Phenom II X4 P920
2010
4 cores / 4 threads, 25 Watt
0.85
Celeron 1017U
2013
2 cores / 2 threads, 17 Watt
0.95
+11.8%

Celeron 1017U outperforms Phenom II X4 P920 by a moderate 12% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Phenom II X4 P920 and Celeron 1017U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking25622500
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Series4x AMD Phenom IIIntel Celeron
Power efficiency3.225.29
Architecture codenameChamplain (2010−2011)Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
Release date12 May 2010 (14 years ago)1 July 2013 (11 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Phenom II X4 P920 and Celeron 1017U 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)
Threads42
Base clock speedno data1.6 GHz
Boost clock speed1.6 GHz1.6 GHz
Bus rate3600 MHz5 GT/s
L1 cache512 KB128 KB
L2 cache2 MB512 KB
L3 cacheno data2 MB
Chip lithography45 nm22 nm
Die sizeno data94 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data105 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Phenom II X4 P920 and Celeron 1017U 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 configurationno data1
SocketS1 (S1g4)FCBGA1023
Power consumption (TDP)25 Watt17 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Phenom II X4 P920 and Celeron 1017U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsMMX, 3DNow, SSE (1,2,3,4A), AMD64, Enhanced Virus Protection, Virtualization, HyperTransport 3.0Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2
VirusProtect+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
My WiFino data-
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Flex Memory Accessno data+
Demand Based Switchingno data-
FDIno data+
Fast Memory Accessno data+

Security technologies

Phenom II X4 P920 and Celeron 1017U technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Phenom II X4 P920 and Celeron 1017U are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data-
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Phenom II X4 P920 and Celeron 1017U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data32 GB
Max memory channelsno data2
Maximum memory bandwidthno data25.6 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataIntel® HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel® Processors
Graphics max frequencyno data1 GHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Phenom II X4 P920 and Celeron 1017U integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data3
eDPno data+
DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+
SDVOno data+
CRTno data+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Phenom II X4 P920 and Celeron 1017U.

PCIe versionno data2.0
PCI Express lanesno data16

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.

Phenom II X4 P920 0.85
Celeron 1017U 0.95
+11.8%

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Phenom II X4 P920 182
Celeron 1017U 263
+44.5%

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Phenom II X4 P920 589
+29.7%
Celeron 1017U 454

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.

Phenom II X4 P920 1395
Celeron 1017U 2201
+57.8%

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

Phenom II X4 P920 5042
+21.3%
Celeron 1017U 4155

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.

Phenom II X4 P920 2083
+21.1%
Celeron 1017U 1719

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

Phenom II X4 P920 24
+93.3%
Celeron 1017U 46.38

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

Phenom II X4 P920 2
+39.2%
Celeron 1017U 1

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.85 0.95
Recency 12 May 2010 1 July 2013
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 45 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 25 Watt 17 Watt

Phenom II X4 P920 has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

Celeron 1017U, on the other hand, has a 11.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 104.5% more advanced lithography process, and 47.1% lower power consumption.

The Celeron 1017U is our recommended choice as it beats the Phenom II X4 P920 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Phenom II X4 P920 and Celeron 1017U, 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.


AMD Phenom II X4 P920
Phenom II X4 P920
Intel Celeron 1017U
Celeron 1017U

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.


3.4 35 votes

Rate Phenom II X4 P920 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 70 votes

Rate Celeron 1017U on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Phenom II X4 P920 or Celeron 1017U, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.