Celeron M 900 vs Turion II Ultra M600

Celeron M 900 vs Turion II Ultra M600 Performance Spectrum

Celeron M 900

1 / 1

2,101

0.0%

2,120

+0.9%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

About PassMark

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 Turion II Ultra M600 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 Turion II Ultra M600: 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 2W, a 1W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,101 vs 2,120).
❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while Turion II Ultra M600 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Turion II Ultra M600

2009

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌100% higher power demand at 2W vs 1W.

Quick Answers

So, is Turion II Ultra M600 better than Celeron M 900?

Yes. Turion II Ultra M600 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.9% 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, Turion II Ultra M600 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.3% 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, Turion II Ultra M600 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.9% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Turion II Ultra M600 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Turion II Ultra M600 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron M 900 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2009 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (24.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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?

Turion II Ultra M600 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 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 Turion II Ultra M600 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.

Turion II Ultra M600

The Turion II Ultra M600 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Caspian (2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2.4 GHz. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: S1g3. Thermal design power (TDP): 2 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 2,120 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron M 900 packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Turion II Ultra M600 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Turion II Ultra M600 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.2 GHz on the Celeron M 900 versus 2.4 GHz on the Turion II Ultra M600 — a 8.7% clock advantage for the Turion II Ultra M600. The Celeron M 900 uses the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture (45 nm), while the Turion II Ultra M600 uses Caspian (2009) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron M 900 scores 2,101 against the Turion II Ultra M600's 2,120 — a 0.9% lead for the Turion II Ultra M600.

Feature	Celeron M 900	Turion II Ultra M600
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	2 / 2+100%
Boost Clock	2.2 GHz	2.4 GHz+9%
L2 Cache	1 MB	2 MB+100%
Process	45 nm	45 nm
Architecture	Penryn (2008−2011)	Caspian (2009)
PassMark	2,101	2,120

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron M 900 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Turion II Ultra M600 uses S1g3 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.