CPU
GPU
Core 2 Extreme X7900
Celeron 1005M
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 Core 2 Extreme X7900 is positioned at rank 1162 and the Celeron 1005M is on rank 1018, so the Celeron 1005M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Core 2 Extreme X7900
Performance Per Dollar Celeron 1005M
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Core 2 Extreme X7900 | Celeron 1005M |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($0) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($86) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Merom (2006−2008) / 65 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) / 22 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Core 2 Extreme X7900 | Celeron 1005M |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($0) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($86) |
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 Core 2 Extreme X7900 and Celeron 1005M
Core 2 Extreme X7900
The Core 2 Extreme X7900 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2007 (18 years ago). It is based on the Merom (2006−2008) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 4 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 44 Watt. Memory support: DDR1. Passmark benchmark score: 1,115 points. Launch price was $851.
Celeron 1005M
The Celeron 1005M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 July 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.9 GHz, with boost up to 1.9 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,116 points. Launch price was $86.
Processing Power
Both the Core 2 Extreme X7900 and Celeron 1005M share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.8 GHz on the Core 2 Extreme X7900 versus 1.9 GHz on the Celeron 1005M — a 38.3% clock advantage for the Core 2 Extreme X7900 (base: 2.8 GHz vs 1.9 GHz). The Core 2 Extreme X7900 uses the Merom (2006−2008) architecture (65 nm), while the Celeron 1005M uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Core 2 Extreme X7900 scores 1,115 against the Celeron 1005M's 1,116 — a 0.1% lead for the Celeron 1005M. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Core 2 Extreme X7900 vs 2 MB on the Celeron 1005M.
| Feature | Core 2 Extreme X7900 | Celeron 1005M |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 2.8 GHz+47% | 1.9 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.8 GHz+47% | 1.9 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 2 MB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB+700% | 512 kB |
| Process | 65 nm | 22 nm-66% |
| Architecture | Merom (2006−2008) | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) |
| PassMark | 1,115 | 1,116 |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | — | 656 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 350 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 607 |
Memory & Platform
The Core 2 Extreme X7900 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron 1005M uses PGA988 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-667 on the Core 2 Extreme X7900 versus DDR3-1600 on the Celeron 1005M — the Celeron 1005M supports 40% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 1005M supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 155.6% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Core 2 Extreme X7900) vs 16 (Celeron 1005M) — the Celeron 1005M offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.
| Feature | Core 2 Extreme X7900 | Celeron 1005M |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | PGA478 | PGA988 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 3.0+173% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR2-667 | DDR3-1600+50% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 4 GB | 32 GB+700% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 16 |
Advanced Features
Only the Core 2 Extreme X7900 has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Virtualization support: VT-x (Core 2 Extreme X7900) vs VT-x, VT-d (Celeron 1005M). The Celeron 1005M includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)), while the Core 2 Extreme X7900 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core 2 Extreme X7900 targets Mobile.
| Feature | Core 2 Extreme X7900 | Celeron 1005M |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) |
| Unlocked | Yes | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x | VT-x, VT-d |
| Target Use | Mobile | — |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Core 2 Extreme X7900 and Celeron 1005M
