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 900 vs Pentium M 760 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 900 vs Pentium M 760: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 900

2009

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Pentium M 760 across 39 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (485 vs 515).
❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while Pentium M 760 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌29.6% higher power demand at 35W vs 27W.

Pentium M 760

2005

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +7.5% higher average FPS across 39 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 27W instead of 35W, a 8W reduction.

Trade-offs

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

Quick Answers

So, is Pentium M 760 better than Celeron 900?

Yes. Pentium M 760 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 7.5% average FPS lead across 39 shared CPU game tests in our data and 6.2% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Pentium M 760 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 7.5% more average FPS across 39 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Pentium M 760 is the stronger fit. You are getting 6.2% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Pentium M 760 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Pentium M 760 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 7.5% average FPS lead across 39 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron 900 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2009 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (5.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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?

Celeron 900 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2009 vs 2005). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron 900 vs Pentium M 760 Technical Specifications

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

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.

Pentium M 760

The Pentium M 760 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 2 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 27 Watt. Memory support: DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 515 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Pentium M 760 is built on the Dothan (2004−2005) architecture. In PassMark, the Celeron 900 scores 485 against the Pentium M 760's 515 — a 6% lead for the Pentium M 760. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 220 vs 240, a 8.7% lead for the Pentium M 760 that directly translates to higher frame rates. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron 900 vs 0 kB on the Pentium M 760.

Feature	Celeron 900	Pentium M 760
Cores / Threads	—	1 / 1
Boost Clock	—	2 GHz
Base Clock	2.2 GHz+10%	2 GHz
L3 Cache	1 MB L2 Cache	0 kB
L2 Cache	—	2 MB
Process	45 nm-50%	90 nm
Architecture	—	Dothan (2004−2005)
PassMark	485	515+6%
Geekbench 6 Single	220	240+9%
Geekbench 6 Multi	229	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

Both processors use the PGA478 socket with PCIe 2.0. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the Celeron 900 versus DDR2-533 on the Pentium M 760 — the Celeron 900 supports 150.1% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 900 supports up to 4 GB of RAM compared to 2 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (Celeron 900) vs 2 (Pentium M 760). Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: GL40,GM45 (Celeron 900) and 915GM,915PM (Pentium M 760).

Feature	Celeron 900	Pentium M 760
Socket	PGA478	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0+82%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333+150%	DDR2-533
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB+100%	2 GB
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization: No (Celeron 900) / not specified (Pentium M 760). Primary use case: Celeron 900 targets Budget, Pentium M 760 targets Mobile. Direct competitor: Celeron 900 rivals Pentium 4 2.80; Pentium M 760 rivals Pentium M 750.