Celeron 2.60 vs Pentium M 715

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.

Celeron 2.60 vs Pentium M 715 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.

Celeron 2.60 vs Pentium M 715: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 2.60

2003

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (385 vs 405).
❌Launch MSRP is still $53 MSRP, while Pentium M 715 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌247.6% higher power demand at 73W vs 21W.

Pentium M 715

2004

Why buy it

✅+5.2% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 21W instead of 73W, a 52W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Quick Answers

So, is Pentium M 715 better than Celeron 2.60?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron 2.60 is ahead with a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Pentium M 715 pulls ahead with 5.2% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Pentium M 715 is the stronger fit. You are getting 5.2% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Pentium M 715 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Pentium M 715 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $53 MSRP, and it still gives you 5.2% better PassMark. Celeron 2.60 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2003 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (7.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on PGA478.

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

Pentium M 715 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2004 vs 2003) and more multi-core headroom with 1 cores / 1 threads instead of 1/1. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron 2.60 vs Pentium M 715 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 2.60

The Celeron 2.60 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Northwood (2002−2004) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 128 kB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 73 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 385 points. Launch price was $69.

Pentium M 715

The Pentium M 715 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Dothan (2004−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Base frequency is 1.5 GHz, with boost up to 1.5 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 7.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 405 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 2.60 and Pentium M 715 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the Celeron 2.60 versus 1.5 GHz on the Pentium M 715 — a 53.7% clock advantage for the Celeron 2.60. The Celeron 2.60 uses the Northwood (2002−2004) architecture (130 nm), while the Pentium M 715 uses Dothan (2004−2005) (90 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 2.60 scores 385 against the Pentium M 715's 405 — a 5.1% lead for the Pentium M 715. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron 2.60	Pentium M 715
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2.6 GHz+73%	1.5 GHz
Base Clock	—	1.5 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	128 kB	2 MB+1500%
Process	130 nm	90 nm-31%
Architecture	Northwood (2002−2004)	Dothan (2004−2005)
PassMark	385	405+5%

🧠

Memory & Platform

Both processors use the PGA478 socket with PCIe 1.1. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-400 on the Celeron 2.60 versus DDR2-533 on the Pentium M 715 — the Pentium M 715 supports 33.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 2.60 supports up to 4 GB of RAM compared to 2 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 1-channel memory with ECC support. Chipset compatibility: 845,865,915 (Celeron 2.60) and Socket 479 (Pentium M 715).

Feature	Celeron 2.60	Pentium M 715
Socket	PGA478	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-400	DDR2-533+33%
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB+100%	2 GB
RAM Channels	1	1
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: No (Celeron 2.60) vs false (Pentium M 715). Primary use case: Celeron 2.60 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 2.60 rivals Pentium 4 2.40.