Celeron M 900 vs Core i7-3517U

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 Core i7-3517U 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 Core i7-3517U: 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

✅Draws 1W instead of 512W, a 511W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,101 vs 2,108).
❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while Core i7-3517U mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-3517U can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core i7-3517U

2012

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics 4000, while Celeron M 900 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌51100% higher power demand at 512W vs 1W.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i7-3517U better than Celeron M 900?

Yes. Core i7-3517U is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.1% 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 i7-3517U is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.1% 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 i7-3517U is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

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

Core i7-3517U is still the much better call for a fresh build. Core i7-3517U comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron M 900 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2009 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (24.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 i7-3517U makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2012 vs 2009) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 4 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 900 vs Core i7-3517U 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.

Core i7-3517U

The Core i7-3517U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 June 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.9 GHz, with boost up to 3 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1023. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR3/L/-RS 1333/1600. Passmark benchmark score: 2,108 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron M 900 packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Core i7-3517U offers 2 cores / 4 threads — the Core i7-3517U has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.2 GHz on the Celeron M 900 versus 3 GHz on the Core i7-3517U — a 30.8% clock advantage for the Core i7-3517U. The Celeron M 900 uses the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture (45 nm), while the Core i7-3517U uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron M 900 scores 2,101 against the Core i7-3517U's 2,108 — a 0.3% lead for the Core i7-3517U.

Feature	Celeron M 900	Core i7-3517U
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	2 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	2.2 GHz	3 GHz+36%
Base Clock	—	1.9 GHz
L3 Cache	—	4 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB	256K (per core)+25500%
Process	45 nm	22 nm-51%
Architecture	Penryn (2008−2011)	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
PassMark	2,101	2,108

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron M 900 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Core i7-3517U uses BGA1023 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron M 900	Core i7-3517U
Socket	PGA478	BGA1023
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 3.0+173%
Max RAM Speed	—	1600
Max RAM Capacity	—	32
RAM Channels	—	2
ECC Support	—	No
PCIe Lanes	—	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Celeron M 900) / true (Core i7-3517U). The Core i7-3517U includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics 4000), while the Celeron M 900 requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Core i7-3517U rivals AMD A10-4655M.