A6-3650 vs Celeron M 900

CPU

GPU

A6-3650

4 Cores4 Thrd100 WWMax: 2.6 GHz2011

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Celeron M 900

1 Cores1 Thrd1 WWMax: 2.2 GHz2009

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

A6-3650 vs Celeron M 900 Performance Spectrum

A6-3650

4 / 4

2,098

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.

A6-3650 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.

A6-3650 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.

A6-3650

2011

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon HD 6530D, while Celeron M 900 needs a discrete GPU.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Celeron M 900.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,098 vs 2,101).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 18.2 vs 24.4 PassMark/$ ($115 MSRP vs $86 MSRP).
❌9900% higher power demand at 100W vs 1W.

Celeron M 900

2009

Why buy it

✅+0.1% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $29 less on MSRP ($86 MSRP vs $115 MSRP).
✅Delivers 33.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 24.4 vs 18.2 PassMark/$ ($86 MSRP vs $115 MSRP).
✅Draws 1W instead of 100W, a 99W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No integrated graphics, while A6-3650 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike A6-3650.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron M 900 better than A6-3650?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, A6-3650 is ahead with a 0.9% 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 $29 cheaper on MSRP at $86 MSRP versus $115 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.1% better PassMark. The compromise is that A6-3650 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 0.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 33.9% better value on MSRP (24.4 vs 18.2 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

A6-3650 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2009). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

A6-3650 vs Celeron M 900 Technical Specifications

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

A6-3650

The A6-3650 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Llano (2011−2012) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FM1. Thermal design power (TDP): 100 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,098 points. Launch price was $70.

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 A6-3650 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Celeron M 900 offers 1 cores / 1 threads — the A6-3650 has 3 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the A6-3650 versus 2.2 GHz on the Celeron M 900 — a 16.7% clock advantage for the A6-3650. The A6-3650 uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron M 900 uses Penryn (2008−2011) (45 nm). In PassMark, the A6-3650 scores 2,098 against the Celeron M 900's 2,101 — a 0.1% lead for the Celeron M 900.

Feature	A6-3650	Celeron M 900
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+300%	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2.6 GHz+18%	2.2 GHz
Base Clock	2.6 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	—
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	1 MB
Process	32 nm-29%	45 nm
Architecture	Llano (2011−2012)	Penryn (2008−2011)
PassMark	2,098	2,101
Geekbench 6 Single	311	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A6-3650 uses the FM1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron M 900 uses PGA478 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	A6-3650	Celeron M 900
Socket	FM1	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0+82%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1866	—
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (A6-3650) / not specified (Celeron M 900). The A6-3650 includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 6530D), while the Celeron M 900 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A6-3650 targets Budget Desktop. Direct competitor: A6-3650 rivals Pentium G850.

Feature	A6-3650	Celeron M 900
Integrated GPU	Yes	—
IGPU Model	Radeon HD 6530D	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	AMD-V	—
Target Use	Budget Desktop	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the A6-3650 was priced at $115, while the Celeron M 900 came in at $86. On launch pricing ($115 vs $86), Celeron M 900 was $29 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the A6-3650 delivers 18.2 pts/$ vs 24.4 pts/$ for the Celeron M 900 — making the Celeron M 900 the 29% better value option.

Feature	A6-3650	Celeron M 900
MSRP	$115	$86-25%
Performance per Dollar	18.2	24.4+34%
Release Date	2011	2009

Search A6-3650 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.