Celeron 440 vs Celeron 900

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 440 vs Celeron 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.

Celeron 440 vs Celeron 900: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 440

2007

Why buy it

✅+10.9% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
✅Costs $27 less on MSRP ($59 MSRP vs $86 MSRP).
✅Delivers 41.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 8.0 vs 5.6 PassMark/$ ($59 MSRP vs $86 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (472 vs 485).

Celeron 900

2009

Why buy it

✅+2.8% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (220 vs 244).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 5.6 vs 8.0 PassMark/$ ($86 MSRP vs $59 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 900 better than Celeron 440?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron 440 is ahead with a 0.7% average FPS lead across 37 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 900 pulls ahead with 2.8% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 900 is the stronger fit. You are getting 2.8% better PassMark.

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

Celeron 900 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Celeron 900 comes in 45.8% more expensive on MSRP at $86 MSRP versus $59 MSRP, and it still gives you 2.8% better PassMark. Celeron 440 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2007 platform. Even with 41.9% better value on paper (8.0 vs 5.6 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on LGA775.

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

Celeron 900 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2009 vs 2007). That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron 440 vs Celeron 900 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 440

The Celeron 440 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 June 2007 (18 years ago). It is based on the Conroe-L (2007−2008) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 472 points. Launch price was $40.

Celeron 900

The Celeron 900 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. Base frequency: 2.2 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 485 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron 440 is built on the Conroe-L (2007−2008) architecture. In PassMark, the Celeron 440 scores 472 against the Celeron 900's 485 — a 2.7% lead for the Celeron 900. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 244 vs 220, a 10.3% lead for the Celeron 440 that directly translates to higher frame rates. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Celeron 440 vs 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron 900.

Feature	Celeron 440	Celeron 900
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	—
Boost Clock	2 GHz	—
Base Clock	2 GHz	2.2 GHz+10%
L3 Cache	0 kB	1 MB L2 Cache
L2 Cache	512 kB	—
Process	65 nm	45 nm-31%
Architecture	Conroe-L (2007−2008)	—
PassMark	472	485+3%
Geekbench 6 Single	244+11%	220
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	229

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 440 uses the LGA775 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron 900 uses PGA478 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-800 on the Celeron 440 versus DDR3-1333 on the Celeron 900 — the Celeron 900 supports 66.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 4 GB of RAM. Memory channels: 2 (Celeron 440) vs 1 (Celeron 900). Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: 945,G31,G41 (Celeron 440) and GL40,GM45 (Celeron 900).

Feature	Celeron 440	Celeron 900
Socket	LGA775	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 2.0+82%
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-800	DDR3-1333+67%
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	4 GB
RAM Channels	2+100%	1
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support No virtualization. Primary use case: Celeron 440 targets Budget, Celeron 900 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 440 rivals Pentium 4 2.80; Celeron 900 rivals Pentium 4 2.80.

Feature	Celeron 440	Celeron 900
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	No	No
Target Use	Budget	Budget

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron 440 was priced at $59, while the Celeron 900 came in at $86. On launch pricing ($59 vs $86), Celeron 440 was $27 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron 440 delivers 8.0 pts/$ vs 5.6 pts/$ for the Celeron 900 — making the Celeron 440 the 34.6% better value option.

Feature	Celeron 440	Celeron 900
MSRP	$59-31%	$86
Performance per Dollar	8.0+43%	5.6
Release Date	2007	2009

Search Celeron 440 on Amazon

Search Celeron 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.