Celeron 900 vs Turion 64 MT-32

CPU

GPU

Celeron 900

35 WW2009

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Turion 64 MT-32

1 Cores1 Thrd512 WWMax: 1.79 GHz2005

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Celeron 900 vs Turion 64 MT-32 Performance Spectrum

Celeron 900

485

0.0%

505

+4.1%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

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.

Celeron 900 vs Turion 64 MT-32 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 Turion 64 MT-32: 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

✅Draws 35W instead of 512W, a 477W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Turion 64 MT-32 across 38 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (485 vs 505).
❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while Turion 64 MT-32 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Turion 64 MT-32

2005

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +7.5% higher average FPS across 38 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌1362.9% higher power demand at 512W vs 35W.

Quick Answers

So, is Turion 64 MT-32 better than Celeron 900?

Yes. Turion 64 MT-32 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 7.5% average FPS lead across 38 shared CPU game tests in our data and 4.1% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Turion 64 MT-32 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 7.5% more average FPS across 38 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Turion 64 MT-32 is the stronger fit. You are getting 4.1% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Turion 64 MT-32 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Turion 64 MT-32 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 7.5% average FPS lead across 38 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron 900 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2009 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (5.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 Turion 64 MT-32 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.

Turion 64 MT-32

The Turion 64 MT-32 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Lancaster (2005−2006) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.79 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: 754. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB. Passmark benchmark score: 505 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Turion 64 MT-32 is built on the Lancaster (2005−2006) architecture. In PassMark, the Celeron 900 scores 485 against the Turion 64 MT-32's 505 — a 4% lead for the Turion 64 MT-32. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron 900 vs 0 kB on the Turion 64 MT-32.

Feature	Celeron 900	Turion 64 MT-32
Cores / Threads	—	1 / 1
Boost Clock	—	1.79 GHz
Base Clock	2.2 GHz	—
L3 Cache	1 MB L2 Cache	0 kB
L2 Cache	—	512 kB
Process	45 nm-50%	90 nm
Architecture	—	Lancaster (2005−2006)
PassMark	485	505+4%
Geekbench 6 Single	220	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	229	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 900 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Turion 64 MT-32 uses 754 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron 900	Turion 64 MT-32
Socket	PGA478	754
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333	—
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	—
RAM Channels	1	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	0	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: No (Celeron 900) / not specified (Turion 64 MT-32). Primary use case: Celeron 900 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 900 rivals Pentium 4 2.80.