
Celeron M 900 vs Turion II Ultra M600

Celeron M 900

Turion II Ultra M600
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Celeron M 900 is positioned at rank 797 and the Turion II Ultra M600 is on rank 260, so the Turion II Ultra M600 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Celeron M 900
Performance Per Dollar Turion II Ultra M600
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Celeron M 900 | Turion II Ultra M600 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($10) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Penryn (2008−2011) / 45 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Caspian (2009) / 45 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Celeron M 900 | Turion II Ultra M600 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($10) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
Performance Check
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Celeron M 900 and Turion II Ultra M600

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.
| Feature | Celeron M 900 | Turion II Ultra M600 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | PGA478 | S1g3 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 2.0+82% |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
















