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 925 vs Pentium M 770 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 925 vs Pentium M 770: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 925

2011

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Pentium M 770 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (525 vs 545).
❌Launch MSRP is still $100 MSRP, while Pentium M 770 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌29.6% higher power demand at 35W vs 27W.

Pentium M 770

2005

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +7.6% higher average FPS across 50 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 770 better than Celeron 925?

Yes. Pentium M 770 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 7.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 3.8% 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 770 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 7.6% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Pentium M 770 is the stronger fit. You are getting 3.8% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Pentium M 770 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Pentium M 770 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $100 MSRP, and it still gives you a 7.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron 925 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2011 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (5.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on that older platform.

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

Celeron 925 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2005). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron 925 vs Pentium M 770 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 925

The Celeron 925 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. Base frequency: 2.3 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache. Built on 45 nm process technology. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 525 points. Launch price was $69.

Pentium M 770

The Pentium M 770 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 2.13 GHz, with boost up to 0.01 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: 545 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Pentium M 770 is built on the Dothan (2004−2005) architecture. In PassMark, the Celeron 925 scores 525 against the Pentium M 770's 545 — a 3.7% lead for the Pentium M 770. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron 925 vs 0 kB on the Pentium M 770.

Feature	Celeron 925	Pentium M 770
Cores / Threads	—	1 / 1
Boost Clock	—	0.01 GHz
Base Clock	2.3 GHz+8%	2.13 GHz
L3 Cache	1 MB L2 Cache	0 kB
L2 Cache	—	2 MB
Process	45 nm-50%	90 nm
Architecture	—	Dothan (2004−2005)
PassMark	525	545+4%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: No (Celeron 925) / not specified (Pentium M 770). Primary use case: Celeron 925 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 925 rivals Pentium 4 2.80.