Athlon II X4 631 vs Celeron M 900

Athlon II X4 631 vs Celeron M 900 Performance Spectrum

Athlon II X4 631

4 / 4

2,118

+0.8%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron M 900

1 / 1

2,101

0.0%

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.

Athlon II X4 631 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.

Athlon II X4 631 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.

Athlon II X4 631

2011

Why buy it

✅Costs $6 less on MSRP ($80 MSRP vs $86 MSRP).
✅Delivers 8.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 26.5 vs 24.4 PassMark/$ ($80 MSRP vs $86 MSRP).
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌9900% higher power demand at 100W vs 1W.

Celeron M 900

2009

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 100W, a 99W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,101 vs 2,118).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 24.4 vs 26.5 PassMark/$ ($86 MSRP vs $80 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is Athlon II X4 631 better than Celeron M 900?

Yes. Athlon II X4 631 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.7% average FPS lead across 43 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.8% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Athlon II X4 631 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.7% more average FPS across 43 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Athlon II X4 631 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.8% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Athlon II X4 631 is the better buy right now. Athlon II X4 631 comes in $6 cheaper on MSRP at $80 MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.7% average FPS lead across 43 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 8.4% better value on MSRP (26.5 vs 24.4 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Athlon II X4 631 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2009) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 threads instead of 1/1. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Athlon II X4 631 vs Celeron M 900 Technical Specifications

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

Athlon II X4 631

The Athlon II X4 631 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. 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: 2,118 points. Launch price was $149.

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 Athlon II X4 631 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Celeron M 900 offers 1 cores / 1 threads — the Athlon II X4 631 has 3 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the Athlon II X4 631 versus 2.2 GHz on the Celeron M 900 — a 16.7% clock advantage for the Athlon II X4 631. The Athlon II X4 631 uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron M 900 uses Penryn (2008−2011) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon II X4 631 scores 2,118 against the Celeron M 900's 2,101 — a 0.8% lead for the Athlon II X4 631.

Feature	Athlon II X4 631	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	2,118	2,101

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon II X4 631 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	Athlon II X4 631	Celeron M 900
Socket	FM1	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0+82%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1866	—
Max RAM Capacity	64 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Athlon II X4 631 was priced at $80, while the Celeron M 900 came in at $86. On launch pricing ($80 vs $86), Athlon II X4 631 was $6 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon II X4 631 delivers 26.5 pts/$ vs 24.4 pts/$ for the Celeron M 900 — making the Athlon II X4 631 the 8% better value option.

Feature	Athlon II X4 631	Celeron M 900
MSRP	$80-7%	$86
Performance per Dollar	26.5+9%	24.4
Release Date	2011	2009

Search Athlon II X4 631 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.