Intel Celeron M 900 vs Intel Celeron M 723 vs Intel Celeron M 722

Intel Celeron M 900

► remove

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 723

► remove

The Intel Celeron M ULV 723 is an ultra low voltage processor based on the Penryn architecture. It features only one core and is intended for the use in very small laptops and netbooks. Many features of the Penryn core are deactivated, like Virtualization VT-x, Trusted Execution support and most importantly power saving functions like Speedstep. This leads to a higher power consumption without load.

The performance of the Celeron 723 is only comparable to Intel Atom N470 on average. In some benchmarks, however, the Celeron can be significantly faster (e.g. SuperPi). All in all, the performance is only suited for very low demanding tasks.

Intel Celeron M 722

► remove

The Intel Celeron M ULV 722 is a single core laptop / embedded CPU that is similar to the Celeron M 723 but features a lower TDP of 5.5 Watt (versus 10 Watt). The performance is slightly beyond the cheap Atom N450 / N280 series. As other Celerons, the M722 does not support Speedstep and Virtualization technology.

Intel Celeron M 900Intel Celeron M 723Intel Celeron M 722
Intel Celeron MIntel Celeron MIntel Celeron M
PenrynPenrynPenryn
: Celeron M Penryn
Intel Celeron M 9252300 MHz1 / 1
» Intel Celeron M 9002200 MHz1 / 1
Intel Celeron M 7631400 MHz1 / 1
Intel Celeron M 7431300 MHz1 / 1
Intel Celeron M 7231200 MHz1 / 1
Intel Celeron M 7221200 MHz1 / 1
Intel Celeron M 9252300 MHz1 / 1
Intel Celeron M 9002200 MHz1 / 1
Intel Celeron M 7631400 MHz1 / 1
Intel Celeron M 7431300 MHz1 / 1
» Intel Celeron M 7231200 MHz1 / 1
Intel Celeron M 7221200 MHz1 / 1
Intel Celeron M 9252300 MHz1 / 1
Intel Celeron M 9002200 MHz1 / 1
Intel Celeron M 7631400 MHz1 / 1
Intel Celeron M 7431300 MHz1 / 1
Intel Celeron M 7231200 MHz1 / 1
» Intel Celeron M 7221200 MHz1 / 1
2200 MHz1200 MHz1200 MHz
800800800
1 MB1 MB1 MB
1 / 11 / 11 / 1
35 5 5.5
410 410 410
45 45 1.05-1.15V45 0.775-1.1V
107 mm2107 mm2107 mm2
105 °C100 °C
PGA478BGA956VGA956
VT, 64 Bit, EIST, eX BitIntel 64, Idle States, Execute Disable Bit
$70 U.S.
Intel Celeron M 900Intel Celeron M 723Intel Celeron M 722
64 KB

Cinebench R10 - Rendering Single 32Bit
100%
900 +
min: 2062     avg: 2101     median: 2101 (23%)     max: 2140 Points
56%
723 +
1180 Points (13%)
wPrime 2.0x - 32m *
100%
723 +
129 seconds (26%)
3DMark 06 - CPU
100%
900 +
1000 Points (7%)
3DMark 06 - CPU - Standard 1280x768 1280x768
100%
723 +
555 Points (18%)
Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 1M *
100%
900 +
min: 27.8     avg: 33.9     median: 33.9 (7%)     max: 40 Seconds
98%
723 +
43.6 Seconds (9%)
Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 2M *
100%
900 +
min: 67     avg: 81.5     median: 81.5 (3%)     max: 96 Seconds
Super Pi Mod 1.5 XS 32M *
100%
900 +
2000 Seconds (9%)
SiSoft Sandra Dhrystone (MIPS)
100%
900 +
9400 MIPS (4%)
SiSoft Sandra Whetstone (MFLOPS)
100%
900 +
7990 MFLOPS (6%)
PCMark 05 - Standard 1024x768
100%
900 +
2586 Points (16%)
69%
723 +
1776 Points (11%)

Average Benchmarks Intel Celeron M 900 → 100%

Average Benchmarks Intel Celeron M 723 → 85%

-
-
* Smaller numbers mean a higher performance
1 This benchmark is not used for the average calculation

v1.8.1a
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)