, , , , , ,
search relation.
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
 

Intel Celeron M 743 vs Intel Celeron M 925 vs Intel Celeron M 900

Intel Celeron M 743

► remove from comparison

The Intel Celeron M ULV 743 is an ultra low voltage single core processor for small sub-notebooks / laptops. It performs slightly above the Atom single core lineup and is intended to power cheap CULV laptops.

The Celeron M 743 is based on the Penryn core but support only a stripped down feature set. For example Speedstep is not supported leading to a higher idle power consumption than other laptops with Core 2 / Pentium processors in this TDP range. Furthermore, 64 Bit support and Virtualization in hardware are not supported.

 

Intel Celeron M 925

► remove from comparison

The Intel Celeron 925 is a mobile single core processor for cheap laptops. It is based on the Penryn core (as the Core 2 Duo Dual Core processors) but many features and one core are deactivated. The missing power saving features, like Speedstep, lead to a lower battery runtime (compared to Core 2 Duo powered laptops). Furthermore, features like Virtualization and Trusted Execution are deactivated.

The performance of the single core processor is located in the entry level segment. Due to the missing 2nd core, the performance may suffer when using many applications at once. Otherwise (in synthetic benchmarks), the Celeron M 925 is on par with a low clocked dual core at 1.3 - 1.4 GHz. Compared to current AMD single core versions, like the AMD V-Series V160, the Celeron 925 should be faster due to the larger Level 2 cache and different architecture. On contrast it usually features the faster chipset graphics card by ATI leading to a better overall performance.

Intel Celeron M 900

► remove from comparison

The Intel Celeron 900 is a mobile single core processor for cheap laptops. It is based on the Penryn core (as the Core 2 Duo Dual Core processors) but many features and one core are deactivated. The missing power saving features, like Speedstep, lead to a lower battery runtime (compared to Core 2 Duo powered laptops). Furthermore, features like Virtualization and Trusted Execution are deactivated.

The performance of the single core processor is located in the entry level segment. Due to the missing 2nd core, the performance may suffer when using many applications at once. Otherwise (in synthetic benchmarks), the Celeron M 900 is on par with a 1.3 GHz Athlon II Neo K325. The similar clocked AMD V-Series V120 should be slower due to the smaller Cache and different architecture. On contrast it usually features the faster chipset graphics card by ATI leading to a better overall performance.

Intel Celeron M 743Intel Celeron M 925Intel Celeron M 900
Intel Celeron MIntel Celeron MIntel Celeron M
PenrynPenrynPenryn
Series: Celeron M Penryn
Intel Celeron M 9252.3 GHz1 / 1
Intel Celeron M 9002.2 GHz1 / 1
Intel Celeron M 7631.4 GHz1 / 1
» Intel Celeron M 7431.3 GHz1 / 1
Intel Celeron M 7231.2 GHz1 / 1
Intel Celeron M 7221.2 GHz1 / 1
» Intel Celeron M 9252.3 GHz1 / 1
Intel Celeron M 9002.2 GHz1 / 1
Intel Celeron M 7631.4 GHz1 / 1
Intel Celeron M 7431.3 GHz1 / 1
Intel Celeron M 7231.2 GHz1 / 1
Intel Celeron M 7221.2 GHz1 / 1
Intel Celeron M 9252.3 GHz1 / 1
» Intel Celeron M 9002.2 GHz1 / 1
Intel Celeron M 7631.4 GHz1 / 1
Intel Celeron M 7431.3 GHz1 / 1
Intel Celeron M 7231.2 GHz1 / 1
Intel Celeron M 7221.2 GHz1 / 1
1300 MHz2300 MHz2200 MHz
800800800
64 KB
1 MB1 MB1 MB
1 / 11 / 11 / 1
10 35 35
410 410 410
45 0.775 - 1.1 V45 45
107 mm2107 mm2107 mm2
100 °C105 °C105 °C
BGA965PGA478PGA478
Architecturex86x86x86
$107 U.S.$70 U.S.$70 U.S.
Intel Celeron M 743Intel Celeron M 925Intel Celeron M 900
VT, 64 Bit, EIST, eX BitVT, 64 Bit, EIST, eX Bit

Benchmarks

Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Rend. Single (32bit)
100%
1 743 +
min: 1230     avg: 1303     median: 1324 (12%)     max: 1356
159%
1 900 +
min: 2062     avg: 2101     median: 2101 (19%)     max: 2140
Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Rend. Single (64bit)
100%
1 743 +
1398 Points (10%)
wPrime 2.10 - wPrime 2.0 1024m *
100%
1 743 +
3886 s (46%)
wPrime 2.10 - wPrime 2.0 32m *
100%
1 743 +
122 s (25%)
3DMark 06 - CPU - 3DMark 06 - CPU
100%
1 743 +
min: 557     avg: 582     median: 581.5 (3%)     max: 606 Points
172%
1 900 +
1000 Points (6%)
Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 1M - Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 1M *
100%
1 743 +
min: 41     avg: 41.9     median: 41.9 (9%)     max: 42.7 s
102%
1 900 +
min: 27.8     avg: 33.9     median: 33.9 (7%)     max: 40 s
Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 2M - Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 2M *
100%
1 743 +
min: 95     avg: 98.5     median: 98.5 (4%)     max: 102 s
101%
1 900 +
min: 67     avg: 81.5     median: 81.5 (3%)     max: 96 s
Super Pi Mod 1.5 XS 32M - Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 32M *
100%
1 743 +
2252 s (10%)
101%
1 900 +
2000 s (9%)
SiSoft Sandra Dhrystone (MIPS) - SiSoft Sandra Dhrystone (MIPS)
100%
1 743 +
min: 5120     avg: 5607     median: 5606.5 (3%)     max: 6093 MIPS
168%
1 900 +
9400 MIPS (4%)
SiSoft Sandra Whetstone (MFLOPS) - SiSoft Sandra Whetstone (MFLOPS)
100%
1 743 +
min: 4410     avg: 4571     median: 4571 (4%)     max: 4732 MFLOPS
175%
1 900 +
7990 MFLOPS (6%)
PCMark 05 - PCMark 05 - Standard
100%
1 743 +
1913 Points (12%)
135%
1 900 +
2586 Points (16%)
Windows 7 Experience Index - Win7 CPU
100%
1 743 +
3.1 Points (40%)

Average Benchmarks Intel Celeron M 743 → NAN% n=

Average Benchmarks Intel Celeron M 900 → NAN% n=

- Range of benchmark values for this graphics card
- Average benchmark values for this graphics card
* Smaller numbers mean a higher performance
1 This benchmark is not used for the average calculation

v1.16
log 17. 06:07:32

#0 checking url part for id 495 +0s ... 0s

#1 checking url part for id 1604 +0s ... 0s

#2 checking url part for id 478 +0s ... 0s

#3 not redirecting to Ajax server +0s ... 0s

#4 did not recreate cache, as it is less than 5 days old! Created at Wed, 15 Sep 2021 13:09:12 +0200 +0s ... 0s

#5 composed specs +0.007s ... 0.007s

#6 did output specs +0s ... 0.007s

#7 getting avg benchmarks for device 495 +0s ... 0.008s

#8 got single benchmarks 495 +0.011s ... 0.018s

#9 getting avg benchmarks for device 1604 +0s ... 0.019s

#10 got single benchmarks 1604 +0.005s ... 0.024s

#11 getting avg benchmarks for device 478 +0s ... 0.024s

#12 got single benchmarks 478 +0.014s ... 0.038s

#13 got avg benchmarks for devices +0s ... 0.038s

#14 min, max, avg, median took s +0.007s ... 0.045s

#15 return log +0s ... 0.045s

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Benchmarks / Tech > Processor Comparison - Head 2 Head
Redaktion, 2017-09- 8 (Update: 2017-09-11)