Intel Celeron M 900 vs Intel Pentium Dual Core T2390
Comparative analysis of Intel Celeron M 900 and Intel Pentium Dual Core T2390 processors for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Performance, Compatibility, Security & Reliability, Advanced Technologies, Virtualization.
Benchmark processor performance analysis: PassMark — Single thread mark, PassMark — CPU mark, Geekbench 4 — Single Core, Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core.
Intel Celeron M 900
Buy on Amazon
vs
Intel Pentium Dual Core T2390
Buy on Amazon
Differences
Reasons to consider the Intel Celeron M 900
- CPU is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 1 month(s) later
- Around 18% higher clock speed: 2.2 GHz vs 1.86 GHz
- Around 5% higher maximum core temperature: 105°C vs 100°C
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor: 45 nm vs 65 nm
| Launch date | 1 April 2009 vs 1 March 2008 |
| Maximum frequency | 2. |
| Maximum core temperature | 105°C vs 100°C |
| Manufacturing process technology | 45 nm vs 65 nm |
Reasons to consider the Intel Pentium Dual Core T2390
- 1 more cores, run more applications at once: 2 vs 1
- 1 more threads: 2 vs 1
- 2.7x better performance in PassMark — Single thread mark: 712 vs 263
- 3.7x better performance in PassMark — CPU mark: 745 vs 204
| Number of cores | 2 vs 1 |
| Number of threads | 2 vs 1 |
| PassMark — Single thread mark | 712 vs 263 |
| PassMark — CPU mark | 745 vs 204 |
Compare benchmarks
CPU 1: Intel Celeron M 900
CPU 2: Intel Pentium Dual Core T2390
| PassMark — Single thread mark |
|
|
||
| PassMark — CPU mark |
|
|
| Name | Intel Celeron M 900 | Intel Pentium Dual Core T2390 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark — Single thread mark | 263 | 712 |
| PassMark — CPU mark | 204 | 745 |
| Geekbench 4 — Single Core | 227 | |
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core | 381 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| Intel Celeron M 900 | Intel Pentium Dual Core T2390 | |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture codename | Penryn | Merom |
| Launch date | 1 April 2009 | 1 March 2008 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $70 | |
| Place in performance rating | 2953 | 2727 |
| Processor Number | 900 | T2390 |
| Series | Legacy Intel® Celeron® Processor | Legacy Intel® Pentium® Processor |
| Status | Discontinued | Discontinued |
| Vertical segment | Mobile | Mobile |
| 64 bit support | ||
| Base frequency | 2. 20 GHz |
1.86 GHz |
| Bus Speed | 800 MHz FSB | 533 MHz FSB |
| Die size | 107 mm2 | 143 mm2 |
| Front-side bus (FSB) | 800 MHz | 533 MHz |
| L2 cache | 1024 KB | 1024 KB |
| Manufacturing process technology | 45 nm | 65 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 105°C | 100°C |
| Maximum frequency | 2. 2 GHz |
1.86 GHz |
| Number of cores | 1 | 2 |
| Number of threads | 1 | 2 |
| Transistor count | 410 million | 291 million |
| VID voltage range | 1.075V-1.175V | |
| Low Halogen Options Available | ||
| Package Size | 35mm x 35mm | 35mm x 35mm |
| Sockets supported | PGA478 | PPGA478 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 35 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Execute Disable Bit (EDB) | ||
| Intel® Trusted Execution technology (TXT) | ||
| Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® technology | ||
| Intel 64 | ||
| Intel® Hyper-Threading technology | ||
| Intel® Turbo Boost technology | ||
| FSB parity | ||
| Intel® Demand Based Switching | ||
| Intel® Virtualization Technology (VT-x) |
Navigation
Choose a CPU
Compare processors
Compare Intel Celeron M 900 with others
Intel
Celeron M 900
vs
Intel
Atom N280
Intel
Celeron M 900
vs
Intel
Celeron 847
Intel
Celeron M 900
vs
Intel
Atom C2338
|
Intel Core 2 Extreme Q9300
2. |
1270 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9100
2.3 GHz (4 cores) |
991 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9000
2.0 GHz (4 cores) |
903 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Duo E8435
3.1 GHz (2 cores) |
767 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Extreme X9100
3.1 GHz (2 cores) |
767 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Duo T9900
3.1 GHz (2 cores) |
739 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Duo T9800
2.9 GHz (2 cores) |
729 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Extreme X9000
2.8 GHz (2 cores) |
719 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Duo P9600
2.7 GHz (2 cores) |
663 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Duo E8235
2.8 GHz (2 cores) |
662 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Duo T9600
2. |
651 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Duo T9500
2.6 GHz (2 cores) |
643 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Duo E8135
2.7 GHz (2 cores) |
642 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Duo P9700
2.8 GHz (2 cores) |
634 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Duo P9500
2.5 GHz (2 cores) |
623 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Duo T9550
2.7 GHz (2 cores) |
619 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Duo T9300
2.5 GHz (2 cores) |
610 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Duo T9400
2.5 GHz (2 cores) |
595 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Duo P9300
2.3 GHz (2 cores) |
581 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Duo P8700
2.5 GHz (2 cores) |
577 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Duo P9400
2. |
573 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Duo P8600
2.4 GHz (2 cores) |
552 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Duo P8400
2.3 GHz (2 cores) |
528 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Duo E8335
2.9 GHz (2 cores) |
518 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Duo P8800
2.7 GHz (2 cores) |
501 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Duo T6670
2.2 GHz (2 cores) |
500 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Duo T8300
2.4 GHz (2 cores) |
492 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Duo L9600
2.1 GHz (2 cores) |
489 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Duo T6600
2.2 GHz (2 cores) |
475 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Duo P7450
2.1 GHz (2 cores) |
473 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Duo T8100
2. |
472 |
|
|
Intel Pentium T4400
2.2 GHz (2 cores) |
470 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Duo P7550
2.3 GHz (2 cores) |
467 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Duo T6500
2.1 GHz (2 cores) |
467 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Duo L9400
1.9 GHz (2 cores) |
463 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Duo P7350
2.0 GHz (2 cores) |
462 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Duo P7370
2.0 GHz (2 cores) |
460 |
|
|
Intel Pentium T4500
2.3 GHz (2 cores) |
458 |
|
|
Intel Celeron T3300
2.0 GHz (2 cores) |
457 |
|
|
Intel Pentium T4300
2.1 GHz (2 cores) |
453 |
|
|
Intel Celeron T3500
2.1 GHz (2 cores) |
446 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Duo T6400
2. |
443 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Duo T6570
2.1 GHz (2 cores) |
436 |
|
|
Intel Pentium T4200
2.0 GHz (2 cores) |
415 |
|
|
Intel Celeron T3100
1.9 GHz (2 cores) |
401 |
|
|
Intel Celeron T3000
1.8 GHz (2 cores) |
384 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Duo U9600
1.6 GHz (2 cores) |
370 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Duo U9400
1.4 GHz (2 cores) |
366 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Duo U9300
1.2 GHz (2 cores) |
337 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Duo SU7300
1.3 GHz (2 cores) |
330 |
|
|
Intel Pentium SU4100
1.3 GHz (2 cores) |
326 |
|
|
Intel Celeron SU2300
1.2 GHz (2 cores) |
278 |
|
|
Intel Celeron 925
2. |
265 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Duo P7570
2.3 GHz (2 cores) |
262 |
|
|
Intel Celeron 900
2.2 GHz (1 core) |
253 |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Solo U3500
1.4 GHz (1 core) |
183 |
|
|
Intel Celeron M ULV 743
1.3 GHz (1 core) |
175 |
|
|
Intel Pentium SU2700
1.3 GHz (1 core) |
149 |
|
5 GHz (4 cores)
8 GHz (2 cores)
4 GHz (2 cores)
1 GHz (2 cores)
0 GHz (2 cores)
3 GHz (1 core) Comparison of Intel Celeron 900 MHz vs Intel Pentium 4 1.5
| Intel Celeron 900 MHz | Intel Pentium 4 1.5 |
|---|---|
| Two processors from Intel | Two Processor Models were released in one temporary period of |
| Processors are the same in terms of the number of nuclei: 1 core | Both models have 1 stream |
| The process of these processors is 180 nm | |
| 000 9000 9000 INTEL INTOM | Intel Pentium 4 1. 5 |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Celeron 900 MHz belongs to the Celeron | Pentium 4 1.5 belongs to the Pentium 9 processor family0017 | ||
| Celeron 900 MHZ is seriously inferior in terms of clock frequency, 900 megagez in comparison with 1,500 MHz | Pentium 4 1.5 greatly overtakes in terms of the base frequency, 1,500 MHz against the rival Celeron 900 MHZ | Celeron 900 MHz has much fewer transistors, 28M vs. 42M | The Pentium 4 1.5 model has significantly more transistors, 42M vs. 28M |
| Celeron 900 MHz has a strong advantage in terms of thermal dissipation, its TDP is lower than its rival at 26.7 W | Pentium 4 1.5 will need a more powerful cooling system, since its TDP reaches 57.8 W The L1 cache of the Celeron 900 MHz processor is much larger than that of the Pentium 4 1.5 and is 32 Kb | The L1 cache of the Pentium 4 1. 5 processor is much smaller compared to the Celeron 900 MHz and is 20 Kilobytes |
|
| The size of the second level cache of the Celeron 900 MHz CPU is much smaller compared to the Pentium 4 1.5 and is 128 Kilobytes | The size of the second level cache of the Pentium 4 1.5 processor is much larger compared to the Celeron 900 MHz and is 256 Kilobytes |
Comparison of instructions and technologies
| Technology or instruction name | Intel Celeron 900 MHz | Intel Pentium 4 1.5 | Short description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stop Grant state | Energy saving status. | ||
| Sleep state | Sleep state. | ||
| Deep Sleep state | Deep sleep state. |
||
| AutoHalt state | Auto stop status. |
| Technology or instruction name | Intel Celeron 900 MHz | Intel Pentium 4 1.5 | Short description |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMX (Multimedia Extensions) | Multimedia extensions. | ||
| SSE (Streaming SIMD Extensions) | Streaming SIMD processor extension. | ||
| SSE2 (Streaming SIMD Extensions 2) | — | Streaming SIMD Processor Extension 2. |
| Technology or instruction name | Intel Celeron 900 MHz | Intel Pentium 4 1. 5 |
Short description |
|---|---|---|---|
| SMM (System Management mode) | — | System control mode. |
Benchmarks
Overall performance rating
The rating can be calculated according to the formula, taking into account all the data: test results for all programs, socket, temperature, number of cores and threads, instructions, structure, auto-overclocking technologies, clock frequency, year of release, as well as other indicators. The results of the overall rating showed that the Celeron 9 processor00 MHz is not much superior to its rival Pentium 4 1.5. The Pentium 4 1.5 processor itself managed to score 97.87 points, slightly outperforming its competitor.
PassMark CPU Mark
The benchmark has a large set of tools for evaluating PC performance, including the CPU. Among them are integer calculations, game physics calculations, extended instruction checking, compression, floating point calculations, encryption, multi-threaded and single-threaded tests.
In particular, it is possible to compare the obtained indicators with other configurations in a common database. All of our CPUs have passed PassMark testing. This is perhaps the most popular benchmark tester on the net. Performance Test showed a slightly higher performance of the Celeron 9 processor00 MHz (96 points) over Pentium 4 1.5 (81 points). The Pentium 4 1.5 falls slightly behind in this test.
Cinebench 10 (32 bit) Single-threaded test
The main test mode for speed tests is multilevel reflections, spatial light sources, working with light, global illumination simulation, photorealistic rendering of a 3D scene, and procedural shaders. This benchmark for video cards and processors is obsolete by now. It uses the ray tracing method. The Single version in its test uses only one rendering thread and one core. The test is carried out under the control of operating systems Windows, Mac OS X. MAXON appeared, it was based on the 3D editor Cinema 4D. It is possible to test many processor systems.
Cinebench 10 (32bit) Multi-thread test
Multi Core is another test option in Cinebench R10 that uses multi-thread and multi-core testing method. It should be noted that the possible number of threads in this version of the program is limited to 16.
Cinebench 11.5 (64-bit) Multi-threaded test
Multi-threaded version of the CINEBENCH 11.5 benchmark, — can test the CPU at 100 percent, including all cores and threads. Unlike previous versions of the program, 64 threads will be involved here. Celeron 9 testing00 MHz in the Cinebench 11.5 benchmark showed a result of 0.11 points, slightly ahead of its competitor. At this time, Pentium 4 1.5 gets its 0.1 points, which fully justifies their close positions in the rating.
Cinebench 11.5 (64-bit) Single-threaded test
Good old multifunctional Cinebench version R11.5 from the Maxon team. In checks, ray tracing technology is still used, a complex three-dimensional space is calculated with many crystalline and glass and translucent balls.
In this Single-Core variant, tests are performed using one core and one thread. His tests are still relevant today. Test indicators — the value of «number of frames per second.» Celeron 9 Single Thread Testing00 MHz in Cinebench 11.5 Single-Core showed that with a score of 0.11 points, it is not far ahead of the competitor. But the Pentium 4 1.5 itself scored 0.1 points in this test.
Cinebench 15 (64-bit) Multi-thread test
The Multi-Thread Cinebench R15 version will test your build in its entirety, demonstrating everything it can do. Cinebench R15 is ideal for modern multithreaded CPUs from AMD and Intel. capable of using 256 threads. All threads and CPU cores are involved in the process of rendering complex 3D objects. Celeron 900 MHz, with a score of 10.02 points, does not win much in multi-threaded testing of the Cinebench r15 benchmark. The Pentium 4 1.5 lags slightly behind with 8.52 points.
Cinebench 15 (64-bit) Single-threaded test
Cinebench 15 is the most up-to-date benchmark from the Finnish team Maxon.
A complex 3D scene is rendered with a large number of light sources, detailed objects and reflections. The whole system is tested: both processors and video cards. For processors, the result of the calculation will be the value of PTS points, and for video cards, the value of frames per second FPS. In this version of Single Core, one thread is used for rendering. Celeron 9 Single Thread Test00 MHz in the Cinebench R15 program showed a result of 10.1 points, slightly ahead of the competitor. With a score of 8.49 in this test, the Pentium 4 1.5 is not far behind.
Geekbench 4.0 (64-bit) Multi-threaded test
64-bit multi-threaded Geekbench 4 test. It has wide multi-platform support for various operating systems and devices, making Geekbench tests the most popular at present. It’s in Geekbench 4 64-bit multi-core Celeron 9 processor00 MHz got 241.19 points, which is slightly higher than the Pentium 4 1.5. In this test, the Pentium 4 1.5 scores 202.65 points.
Geekbench 4.
0 (64-bit) Single-threaded test
The Single-Core version uses one processor thread. The current single-threaded version of Geekbench 4 for testing laptops and desktop PCs. The program, like its earlier versions, runs on OS: Linux, Mac OS, Windows. For the first time ever, this version of the benchmark also supports Android and iOS smartphones. Celeron 900 MHz got the most points in the single thread test from Geekbench 4, with a score of 239.23, but not far ahead of the competition. But the Pentium 4 1.5 itself also showed a good score of 203.42 points, slightly giving way to the Celeron 900 MHz model.
Geekbench 3 (32 bit)
Multi Core Geekbench 3 benchmark — can allow you to put a powerful stress test on your PC and demonstrate the stability of your system.
Geekbench 3 (32bit) Single thread test
The Geekbench multi-platform tester is usually used to test the system under Mac, but it can work on both Windows and Linux. The main purpose is to check the performance of the CPU.
The 32-bit version of the benchmark loads only one processor core and one thread.
Geekbench 2
A more outdated version of the Geekbench 2 benchmark. Our archive contains almost 200 CPU models that have test results in this program. To date, there are more recent options, the current 5v and the fourth.
X264 HD 4.0 Pass 1
In fact, this is a practical test of processor performance through transcoding HD video files to the new H.264 format, the so-called MPEG 4 x264 codec. The number of frames processed per second is the result of the check. This test is faster than Pass 2 because encoding is done at a constant speed. This is the most appropriate test for multi-core and multi-thread processors. The MPEG 4 video processing speed of the Celeron 900 MHz model is slightly higher than that of the Pentium 4 1.5, and amounted to 2.88 FPS. Pentium 4 1.5 was able to score 2.42 FPS, slightly behind the first processor.
X264 HD 4.0 Pass 2
This is a slightly different, slower test based on video file compression.
The same MPEG4 x264 codec is used, but rendering occurs at a variable rate. The final result is also defined in frames per second. It is important to be aware that a real task is being performed, and the x264 codec is used in many video programs. The result is a higher quality video. Therefore, the test results really reflect the effectiveness of the platform. During video file encoding by Celeron 9 processor00 MHz to mpeg4 format — a processing speed of 0.63 Frames / s was obtained. While the Pentium 4 1.5 is slightly behind with a score of 0.54 FPS.
3DMark06 CPU
Written using the DirectX API by the Finnish Futuremark team. CPUs are tested in two ways: artificial intelligence performs a path search, and the second test simulates the system using PhysX. This test is often used by overclockers and fans of overclocking processors and gamers. Benchmark to evaluate the performance of the processor, and video system. Celeron 900 MHz showed itself a little faster in tests for game physics, pathfinding, while gaining up to 150.
11 points. The Pentium 4 1.5 also coped with these tasks, showing a good result of 127.97 points.
3DMark Fire Strike Physics
Almost 200 processors on our site have 3DMark FSP test data. It represents a test that performs game physics calculations.
WinRAR 4.0
Everyone knows the file archiver. The speed of RAR compression was checked by the algorithm, for this large volumes of randomly generated files were generated. The resulting speed in the process of compression «Kb / s» — this is the test indicator. The tests were run under Windows. Celeron 900 MHz slightly outperformed its competitor in WinRAR file compression speed, the result of data encoding was 83.12 Kb/s. The Pentium 4 1.5 delivered an encoding speed of 69.75 Kb/s.
TrueCrypt AES
This is not exactly a benchmark, but the results of its work can evaluate the performance of the entire computer. The program includes the function of encrypting disk partitions on the fly.
The program can fully function in Windows, Mac OS X and Linux operating systems. It so happened that support for this program was terminated on May 28, 2014. Our site presents the results of encryption speed in gigabytes per second using the AES algorithm.
Dual-core Celeron G5900 to 10-core Core i9-10900. Became known parameters desktop CPU Intel Comet Lake
As you know, in the near future we expect new desktop processors from Intel. And if for 10nm we can only hope for the best, based on the sensational statement of a company representative, everything is easier with 14nm.
CPU Comet Lake-S will be released in the first half of next year and will require a new socket — LGA 1200. Despite the same process technology (although it will be improved once again), the processors themselves will still change. At the very least, we are waiting for new 10-core models that Intel did not previously have in this segment. According to the leaked slides, the new processors will provide an increase of 8-18% compared to the current generation.
As for parameters and models, they are listed below.
| Processor | Number of cores/threads | Frequencies, GHz | Cache memory, MB | TDP, W |
| Core i9-10900 | 10/20 | 3.0-5.1 | 20 | 65 |
| Core i9-10900T | 10/20 | 2.0-4.5 | 20 | 35 |
| Core i7-10700 | 8/16 | 3.0-4.8 | 16 | 65 |
| Core i7-10700T | 8/16 | 2.0-4.4 | 16 | 35 |
| Core i5-10500 | 6/12 | 3.2-4.3 | 12 | 65 |
| Core i5-10500T | 6/12 | 2.3-3.7 | 12 | 35 |
| Core i3-10100 | 4/8 | 3.2-3.8 | 6 | 65 |
| Core i3-10100T | 4/8 | 2. 3-3.6 |
6 | 35 |
| Pentium G6400 | 2/4 | 3.8 | 4 | 65 |
| Pentium G6400T | 2/4 | 3.2 | 4 | 35 |
| Celeron G5900 | 2/2 | 3.2 | 2 | 65 |
| Celeron G5900T | 2/2 | 3.0 | 2 | 35 |
So, what do we get as a result? We get the most logical division within a generation. Now the Core i9 will be 10-core models, the Core i7 will be eight-core, the Core i5 will be six-core, and the Core i3 will be quad-core. Moreover, support for Hyper-Threading will be available for all Core processors. It will also be available for dual-core Pentiums.
Thus, the new Core i9 will be significantly faster than the previous Core i9 models, but the rest is not so good. For example, if you compare the Core i7-10700 with the Core i7-9700, it turns out that the new product has only a 100 MHz higher maximum frequency.
And if we compare the Core i3-10100 and Core i3-9100, then the new CPU frequencies are completely lower. True, support for Hyper-Threading has appeared, but, as you know, it is not always more important than operating frequencies.
It’s too early to draw conclusions, as Intel may well introduce some microarchitectural changes, but at the moment, apart from the introduction of 10-core processors and the addition of Hyper-Threading support, the new CPUs are not particularly impressive. Especially against the background of the need to change the motherboard in case of an update. The declared TDP also looks very interesting: 65 W for both the dual-core Celeron and the 10-core Core i9- it looks ridiculous, even if you remember that this is the value Intel indicates for the base frequencies.
It is worth noting that there are no models with an unlocked multiplier in the list, but the source says that they will still be, which is quite logical.
Other features include support for 16 PCIe 3.