3015Ce vs Celeron M 900

3015Ce vs Celeron M 900 Performance Spectrum

3015Ce

2 / 4

2,099

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron M 900

1 / 1

2,101

+0.1%

About PassMark

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

3015Ce vs Celeron M 900 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

3015Ce vs Celeron M 900: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

3015Ce

2020

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (8 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon Graphics (2-Core), while Celeron M 900 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,099 vs 2,101).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 14.0 vs 24.4 PassMark/$ ($150 MSRP vs $86 MSRP).

Celeron M 900

2009

Why buy it

✅+0.1% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $64 less on MSRP ($86 MSRP vs $150 MSRP).
✅Delivers 74.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 24.4 vs 14.0 PassMark/$ ($86 MSRP vs $150 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌No integrated graphics, while 3015Ce can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron M 900 better than 3015Ce?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, 3015Ce is ahead with a 2.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron M 900 pulls ahead with 0.1% better PassMark.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron M 900 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Celeron M 900 is the better buy right now. Celeron M 900 comes in $64 cheaper on MSRP at $86 MSRP versus $150 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.1% better PassMark. The compromise is that 3015Ce is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 2.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 74.6% better value on MSRP (24.4 vs 14.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

3015Ce makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2020 vs 2009). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

3015Ce vs Celeron M 900 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

3015Ce

The 3015Ce is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Pollock (Zen) (2020) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.2 GHz, with boost up to 2.3 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FT5. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB + 4 MB. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 2,099 points. Launch price was $50.

Celeron M 900

The Celeron M 900 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 April 2009 (16 years ago). It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.2 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 2,101 points. Launch price was $70.

⚡

Processing Power

The 3015Ce packs 2 cores / 4 threads, while the Celeron M 900 offers 1 cores / 1 threads — the 3015Ce has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.3 GHz on the 3015Ce versus 2.2 GHz on the Celeron M 900 — a 4.4% clock advantage for the 3015Ce. The 3015Ce uses the Pollock (Zen) (2020) architecture (14 nm), while the Celeron M 900 uses Penryn (2008−2011) (45 nm). In PassMark, the 3015Ce scores 2,099 against the Celeron M 900's 2,101 — a 0.1% lead for the Celeron M 900.

Feature	3015Ce	Celeron M 900
Cores / Threads	2 / 4+100%	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2.3 GHz+5%	2.2 GHz
Base Clock	1.2 GHz	—
L3 Cache	4 MB	—
L2 Cache	1 MB	1 MB
Process	14 nm-69%	45 nm
Architecture	Pollock (Zen) (2020)	Penryn (2008−2011)
PassMark	2,099	2,101

🧠

Memory & Platform

The 3015Ce uses the FT5 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron M 900 uses PGA478 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	3015Ce	Celeron M 900
Socket	FT5	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+173%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	1600	—
Max RAM Capacity	16	—
RAM Channels	1	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	8	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: true (3015Ce) / not specified (Celeron M 900). The 3015Ce includes integrated graphics (Radeon Graphics (2-Core)), while the Celeron M 900 requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: 3015Ce rivals Celeron N4020.

Feature	3015Ce	Celeron M 900
Integrated GPU	Yes	—
IGPU Model	Radeon Graphics (2-Core)	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	true	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the 3015Ce was priced at $150, while the Celeron M 900 came in at $86. On launch pricing ($150 vs $86), Celeron M 900 was $64 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the 3015Ce delivers 14.0 pts/$ vs 24.4 pts/$ for the Celeron M 900 — making the Celeron M 900 the 54.3% better value option.

Feature	3015Ce	Celeron M 900
MSRP	$150	$86-43%
Performance per Dollar	14.0	24.4+74%
Release Date	2020	2009

Search 3015Ce on Amazon

Search Celeron M 900 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.