Celeron 1005M vs Core 2 Extreme X7900
Celeron 1005M
Core 2 Extreme X7900
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Celeron 1005M is positioned at rank 1018 and the Core 2 Extreme X7900 is on rank 1162, so the Celeron 1005M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Celeron 1005M
Performance Per Dollar Core 2 Extreme X7900
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Celeron 1005M | Core 2 Extreme X7900 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($86) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) / 22 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Merom (2006−2008) / 65 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Celeron 1005M | Core 2 Extreme X7900 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($86) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
Performance Check
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Celeron 1005M and Core 2 Extreme X7900
Celeron 1005M
The Celeron 1005M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 July 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.9 GHz, with boost up to 1.9 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,116 points. Launch price was $86.
Core 2 Extreme X7900
The Core 2 Extreme X7900 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2007 (18 years ago). It is based on the Merom (2006−2008) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 4 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 44 Watt. Memory support: DDR1. Passmark benchmark score: 1,115 points. Launch price was $851.
Processing Power
Both the Celeron 1005M and Core 2 Extreme X7900 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.9 GHz on the Celeron 1005M versus 2.8 GHz on the Core 2 Extreme X7900 — a 38.3% clock advantage for the Core 2 Extreme X7900 (base: 1.9 GHz vs 2.8 GHz). The Celeron 1005M uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Core 2 Extreme X7900 uses Merom (2006−2008) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 1005M scores 1,116 against the Core 2 Extreme X7900's 1,115 — a 0.1% lead for the Celeron 1005M. L3 cache: 2 MB on the Celeron 1005M vs 0 kB on the Core 2 Extreme X7900.
| Feature | Celeron 1005M | Core 2 Extreme X7900 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 1.9 GHz | 2.8 GHz+47% |
| Base Clock | 1.9 GHz | 2.8 GHz+47% |
| L3 Cache | 2 MB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 512 kB | 4 MB+700% |
| Process | 22 nm-66% | 65 nm |
| Architecture | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) | Merom (2006−2008) |
| PassMark | 1,116 | 1,115 |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 656 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 350 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 607 | — |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron 1005M uses the PGA988 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core 2 Extreme X7900 uses PGA478 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1600 on the Celeron 1005M versus DDR2-667 on the Core 2 Extreme X7900 — the Celeron 1005M supports 40% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 1005M supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 155.6% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Celeron 1005M) vs 0 (Core 2 Extreme X7900) — the Celeron 1005M offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.
| Feature | Celeron 1005M | Core 2 Extreme X7900 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | PGA988 | PGA478 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0+173% | PCIe 1.1 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-1600+50% | DDR2-667 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 32 GB+700% | 4 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Only the Core 2 Extreme X7900 has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Celeron 1005M) vs VT-x (Core 2 Extreme X7900). The Celeron 1005M includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)), while the Core 2 Extreme X7900 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core 2 Extreme X7900 targets Mobile.
| Feature | Celeron 1005M | Core 2 Extreme X7900 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | No |
| IGPU Model | Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) | — |
| Unlocked | No | Yes |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | VT-x |
| Target Use | — | Mobile |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Celeron 1005M and Core 2 Extreme X7900
