Celeron M 900 vs Core i7-640M

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 i7-640M 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 i7-640M: 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

✅+0.4% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 1W instead of 35W, a 34W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while Core i7-640M mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-640M can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core i7-640M

2010

Why buy it

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

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,092 vs 2,101).
❌3400% higher power demand at 35W vs 1W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron M 900 better than Core i7-640M?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Core i7-640M is ahead with a 0.5% average FPS lead across 43 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron M 900 pulls ahead with 0.4% better PassMark.

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 at an unclear MSRP at $86 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.4% better PassMark. The compromise is that Core i7-640M is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 0.5% average FPS lead across 43 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (24.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Core i7-640M makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2010 vs 2009). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron M 900 vs Core i7-640M 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 i7-640M

The Core i7-640M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Arrandale (2010−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 3.46 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,092 points. Launch price was $346.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron M 900 packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Core i7-640M offers 2 cores / 4 threads — the Core i7-640M has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.2 GHz on the Celeron M 900 versus 3.46 GHz on the Core i7-640M — a 44.5% clock advantage for the Core i7-640M. The Celeron M 900 uses the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture (45 nm), while the Core i7-640M uses Arrandale (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron M 900 scores 2,101 against the Core i7-640M's 2,092 — a 0.4% lead for the Celeron M 900.

Feature	Celeron M 900	Core i7-640M
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	2 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	2.2 GHz	3.46 GHz+57%
Base Clock	—	2.8 GHz
L3 Cache	—	4 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB	256K (per core)+25500%
Process	45 nm	32 nm-29%
Architecture	Penryn (2008−2011)	Arrandale (2010−2011)
PassMark	2,101	2,092

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron M 900 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Core i7-640M uses PGA988 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron M 900	Core i7-640M
Socket	PGA478	PGA988
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 2.0+82%
Max RAM Speed	—	1066
Max RAM Capacity	—	8
RAM Channels	—	2
ECC Support	—	No
PCIe Lanes	—	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Celeron M 900) / true (Core i7-640M). The Core i7-640M includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Ironlake)), while the Celeron M 900 requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Core i7-640M rivals Core 2 Duo T9600.