0 Comments
| | Intel Pentium T4400 vs Celeron 900 |
Released October, 2009
Intel Pentium T4400
- 2.2 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the Intel Pentium T4400
| | Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes | | Much better performance per dollar 6.47 pt/$ |
| | More cores 2 | | More threads 2 |
VS
Released January, 2009
Intel Celeron 900
- 2.2 GHz
- Single core
Reasons to buy the Celeron 900
| | Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core | | Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.71 GHz |
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of T4400 vs 900
Performance | |
Benchmark performance using all cores | |
| Pentium T4400 5.9 Celeron 900 5.5 | |
| 3DMark06 (CPU), Passmark and GeekBench (32-bit) | |
Single-core Performance | |
Individual core benchmark performance | |
| Pentium T4400 6.9 Celeron 900 6.8 | |
| Passmark (Single Core) | |
Power Consumption | |
How much power does the processor require? | |
| Pentium T4400 5.3 Celeron 900 5.3 | |
| TDP | |
Features | |
How does CPUBoss rank the features of each product? | |
| Pentium T4400 3.7 Celeron 900 2.3 | |
| Features and specifications that differ between products | |
No winner declared
Too close to call
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| 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 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Much better performance per dollar | 6.47 pt/$ | vs | 2.19 pt/$ | Around 3x better performance per dollar | |||
| More cores | 2 | vs | 1 | Twice as many cores; run more applications at once | |||
| More threads | 2 | vs | 1 | Twice as many threads | |||
| Better 3DMark06 CPU score | 1,897 | vs | 1,000 | Around 90% better 3DMark06 CPU score | |||
| Better geekbench (32-bit) score | 1,969 | vs | 1,049 | Around 90% better geekbench (32-bit) score | |||
| Slightly better PassMark score | 1,303 | vs | 696 | More than 85% better PassMark score | |||
| Marginally newer | Oct, 2009 | vs | Jan, 2009 | Release date 9 months later | |||
| |||||||
| Much more l2 cache per core | 1 MB/core | vs | 0.5 MB/core | 2x more l2 cache per core | |||
| Better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 2.71 GHz | vs | 2.37 GHz | Around 15% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
Benchmarks Real world tests of Pentium T4400 vs Celeron 900
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Pentium T4400 | vs | Celeron 900 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 2.2 GHz | |
| Cores | Dual core | Single core | |
| Socket type | |||
| 478 | |||
| P | |||
| Is hyperthreaded | No | No | |
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Supports trusted computing | No | No | |
| Has vitualization support | No | No | |
| Instruction-set-extensions | |||
| MMX | |||
| SSE | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| SSE2 | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | No | |
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 | |||
| Architecture | FSB | FSB | |
| Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
| Clock speed | 800 MHz | 800 MHz | |
details | Pentium T4400 | vs | Celeron 900 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 2 | 1 | |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 1 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 0.5 MB/core | 1 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 45 nms | 45 nms | |
| Transistor count | 410,000,000 | 410,000,000 | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclocked clock speed | 2.37 GHz | 2.71 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 2.2 GHz | 2.2 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 2.37 GHz | 2.71 GHz | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 35W | 35W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 8.43 $/year | 8.43 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 7.39 pt/W | 4.38 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 28.44W | 28.44W | |
| Intel Pentium T4400 | Intel Celeron 900 |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
| VS | |
| $90 | $40 | |
| T6600 vs T4400 | ||
| VS | |
| $125 | $40 | |
| 3220 vs T4400 | ||
| VS | |
| $25 | $40 | |
| T8300 vs T4400 | ||
| VS | |
| $25 | $40 | |
| T7500 vs T4400 | ||
| VS | |
| $225 | $40 | |
| 3217U vs T4400 | ||
| VS | |
| $197 | $70 | |
| T7250 vs 900 | ||
| VS | |
| $25 | $70 | |
| T8300 vs 900 | ||
Popular Comparisons
| VS | |
| $248 | $335 | |
| 9590 vs 4770K | ||
| VS | |
| $161 | $225 | |
| N3530 vs 3110M | ||
| VS | |
| $225 | ||
| N2830 vs 3217U | ||
| VS | |
| $105 | $281 | |
| 6410 vs 4200U | ||
| VS | |
| $340 | $335 | |
| 4790K vs 4770K | ||
| VS | |
| $378 | ||
| 4700MQ vs 5750M | ||
| VS | |
| 800 vs 5 Octa | ||





