Celeron M 560 vs Core i7-920XM

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 M 560 vs Core i7-920XM 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 M 560 vs Core i7-920XM: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron M 560

2008

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 55W, a 54W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i7-920XM across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (2,008 vs 2,014).
❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while Core i7-920XM mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Core i7-920XM

2009

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌5400% higher power demand at 55W vs 1W.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i7-920XM better than Celeron M 560?

Yes. Core i7-920XM is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 3.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.3% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core i7-920XM is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 3.0% 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, Core i7-920XM is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 8 threads.

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

Core i7-920XM is still the much better call for a fresh build. Core i7-920XM comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 3.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron M 560 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2008 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (23.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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?

Core i7-920XM makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2009 vs 2008) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 8 threads instead of 1/1. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron M 560 vs Core i7-920XM Technical Specifications

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

Celeron M 560

The Celeron M 560 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Merom (2006−2008) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.13 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 2,008 points. Launch price was $69.

Core i7-920XM

The Core i7-920XM is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 23 September 2009 (16 years ago). It is based on the Clarksfield (2009−2010) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 55 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-1066, DDR3-1333. Passmark benchmark score: 2,014 points. Launch price was $1,054.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron M 560 packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Core i7-920XM offers 4 cores / 8 threads — the Core i7-920XM has 3 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.13 GHz on the Celeron M 560 versus 3.2 GHz on the Core i7-920XM — a 40.2% clock advantage for the Core i7-920XM. The Celeron M 560 uses the Merom (2006−2008) architecture (65 nm), while the Core i7-920XM uses Clarksfield (2009−2010) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron M 560 scores 2,008 against the Core i7-920XM's 2,014 — a 0.3% lead for the Core i7-920XM.

Feature	Celeron M 560	Core i7-920XM
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	4 / 8+300%
Boost Clock	2.13 GHz	3.2 GHz+50%
Base Clock	—	2 GHz
L3 Cache	—	8 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB+300%	256 kB (per core)
Process	65 nm	45 nm-31%
Architecture	Merom (2006−2008)	Clarksfield (2009−2010)
PassMark	2,008	2,014

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron M 560 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Core i7-920XM uses PGA988 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 667 on the Celeron M 560 versus 1333 on the Core i7-920XM — the Core i7-920XM supports 99.9% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core i7-920XM supports up to 8 of RAM compared to 4 — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Celeron M 560) vs 16 (Core i7-920XM) — the Core i7-920XM offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: GL960,GM965 (Celeron M 560) and PM55,HM55,QM57 (Core i7-920XM).

Feature	Celeron M 560	Core i7-920XM
Socket	PGA478	PGA988
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 2.0+82%
Max RAM Speed	667	1333+100%
Max RAM Capacity	4	8+100%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Core i7-920XM has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Virtualization support: false (Celeron M 560) vs true (Core i7-920XM). Direct competitor: Celeron M 560 rivals Mobile Sempron 3600+; Core i7-920XM rivals Core i7-2720QM.