CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 900 vs 955

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

Passmark and GeekBench

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

Passmark (Single Core)

Power Consumption

How much power does the processor require?

TDP

Value

Performance Per Dollar

CPUBoss Score

Performance, Single-core Performance, Power Consumption and Value

Winner
AMD Phenom II X4 955 

CPUBoss recommends the AMD Phenom II X4 955  based on its .

See full details

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS
Front view of AMD Phenom II X4 955

AMD Phenom II X4 955

CPUBoss Winner

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Celeron 900

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron 900

Report a correction
Significantly lower typical power consumption 28.44W vs 101.56W 3.6x lower typical power consumption
Much higher Maximum Operating Temperature 105 °C vs 62 °C Around 70% higher Maximum Operating Temperature
Significantly more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost 30.66 $/year vs 109.5 $/year 3.6x lower annual commercial energy cost
Significantly lower annual home energy cost 8.43 $/year vs 30.11 $/year 3.6x lower annual home energy cost
Front view of AMD Phenom II X4 955

Reasons to consider the
AMD Phenom II X4 955

Report a correction
Significantly higher clock speed 3.2 GHz vs 2.2 GHz More than 45% higher clock speed
Has vitualization support Yes vs No Somewhat common; Boosts performance of virtual machines
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for maximum performance when needed, while conserving power and minimizing heat production when not needed
Better geekbench (32-bit) score 5,668 vs 1,051 Around 5.5x better geekbench (32-bit) score
Better PassMark score 4,015 vs 695 More than 5.8x better PassMark score
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.99 GHz vs 2.71 GHz More than 45% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
More cores 4 vs 1 3 more cores; run more applications at once
Better PassMark (Single core) score 1,124 vs 800 More than 40% better PassMark (Single core) score
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.17 GHz vs 2.2 GHz Around 90% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Marginally newer Nov, 2009 vs Jan, 2009 Release date 10 months later

Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron 900 vs Phenom II X4 955

GeekBench

Passmark

Benchmark Results: The 3DMark 2006 CPU test showed that the Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition was faster than the Intel Q9550 once again!
Phenom II X4 955 | by Legit Reviews (May, 2009)

Passmark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Celeron 900  vs
Phenom II X4 955 
Clock speed 2.2 GHz 3.2 GHz
Cores Single core Quad core
Socket type
478
AM3
Is hyperthreaded No No

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has vitualization support No Yes
Instruction-set-extensions
MMX
SSE
SSE3
SSE2
Supplemental SSE3
SSE4a
3DNow!
Supports dynamic frequency scaling No Yes

gpu

GPU None None
Label N/A N/A
Latest DirectX N/A N/A
Number of displays supported N/A N/A
GPU clock speed N/A N/A
Turbo clock speed N/A N/A
3DMark06 N/A N/A

bus

Clock speed 800 MHz 2,000 MHz

details

Celeron 900  vs
Phenom II X4 955 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 1 4
L2 cache 1 MB 2 MB
L2 cache per core 1 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 45 nms 45 nms
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 105°C Unknown - 62°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 2.71 GHz 3.99 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.2 GHz 4.17 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.71 GHz 3.99 GHz

power consumption

TDP 35W 125W
Annual home energy cost 8.43 $/year 30.11 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 30.66 $/year 109.5 $/year
Performance per watt 4.43 pt/W 4.4 pt/W
Typical power consumption 28.44W 101.56W
Intel Celeron 900
Report a correction
AMD Phenom II X4 955
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus