Celeron M 900 vs Celeron N2807

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 900 vs Celeron N2807 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 900 vs Celeron N2807: 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 900

2009

Why buy it

✅Costs $21 less on MSRP ($86 MSRP vs $107 MSRP).
✅Delivers 24.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 24.4 vs 19.6 PassMark/$ ($86 MSRP vs $107 MSRP).
✅Draws 1W instead of 4W, a 3W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron N2807 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Celeron N2807

2014

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail), while Celeron M 900 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,093 vs 2,101).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 19.6 vs 24.4 PassMark/$ ($107 MSRP vs $86 MSRP).
❌300% higher power demand at 4W vs 1W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron M 900 better than Celeron N2807?

Yes. Celeron M 900 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.4% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron M 900 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.7% 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, Celeron M 900 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.4% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Celeron M 900 is the better buy right now. Celeron M 900 comes in $21 cheaper on MSRP at $86 MSRP versus $107 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 24.9% better value on MSRP (24.4 vs 19.6 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Celeron N2807 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2014 vs 2009). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron M 900 vs Celeron N2807 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron M 900

The Celeron M 900 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 April 2009 (16 years ago). It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.2 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 2,101 points. Launch price was $70.

Celeron N2807

The Celeron N2807 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 23 February 2014 (11 years ago). It is based on the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.58 GHz, with boost up to 2.16 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 4.3 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,093 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron M 900 packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Celeron N2807 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Celeron N2807 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.2 GHz on the Celeron M 900 versus 2.16 GHz on the Celeron N2807 — a 1.8% clock advantage for the Celeron M 900. The Celeron M 900 uses the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture (45 nm), while the Celeron N2807 uses Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron M 900 scores 2,101 against the Celeron N2807's 2,093 — a 0.4% lead for the Celeron M 900.

Feature	Celeron M 900	Celeron N2807
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	2 / 2+100%
Boost Clock	2.2 GHz+2%	2.16 GHz
Base Clock	—	1.58 GHz
L3 Cache	—	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB	512K (per core)+51100%
Process	45 nm	22 nm-51%
Architecture	Penryn (2008−2011)	Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)
PassMark	2,101	2,093
Geekbench 6 Single	—	180
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	320

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron M 900 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron N2807 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron M 900	Celeron N2807
Socket	PGA478	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 2.0+82%
Max RAM Speed	—	DDR3L-1333
Max RAM Capacity	—	4 GB
RAM Channels	—	1
ECC Support	—	No
PCIe Lanes	—	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Celeron M 900) / VT-x (Celeron N2807). The Celeron N2807 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)), while the Celeron M 900 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron N2807 targets Netbook. Direct competitor: Celeron N2807 rivals AMD E1-6010.

Feature	Celeron M 900	Celeron N2807
Integrated GPU	—	Yes
IGPU Model	—	Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	No
Virtualization	—	VT-x
Target Use	—	Netbook

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron M 900 was priced at $86, while the Celeron N2807 came in at $107. On launch pricing ($86 vs $107), Celeron M 900 was $21 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron M 900 delivers 24.4 pts/$ vs 19.6 pts/$ for the Celeron N2807 — making the Celeron M 900 the 22.1% better value option.

Feature	Celeron M 900	Celeron N2807
MSRP	$86-20%	$107
Performance per Dollar	24.4+24%	19.6
Release Date	2009	2014

Search Celeron M 900 on Amazon

Search Celeron N2807 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.