What is faster? Intel Celeron Processor 900 vs. AMD Athlon II dual-core processor M320?

The thing that misleads most customers is that the power of a processing unit is calculated in operations per second. That frequency is just a clock tact after which the processor works and coordinates its instructions. It has no relevant meaning.

This means that for one tact, Hertz, on CPU could be doing more FLOPS than the other.

I would go for the AMD processor, if I were you.

A dual core has two complete processing units in a single casing, generally with independent level 1 and level 2 caches and a shared level 3 cache. By comparison, a hyperthreaded processor (with one core) appears as two logical processing units, with many resources shared between them. What a dual core, or hyperthreading, DOES NOT do, is double the speed. If something is not optimized for multithreading, then it can only occupy a single core (or thread of hyperthreading) at a time, though the presence of an extra core or thread can allow background tasks to proceed without taking anything away. Since pretty much any processor is at least dual or hyperthreaded thes days (even the Netbook ATOM N4xx series processor is hyperthreaded), then we can expect to see better usage of multithreading in future

The M320 is way faster than the Celeron 900

The Celeron 900 has the faster clock speed, but then the M320 Athlon has 2 cores

The M320 gets a job done much faster than the Celeron 900 & thats what matters to me for results

And yes, benchmarks give you a much better picture

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Ben...

M320 is at #95 & Celeron 900 at #169

Amd Celeron

CPU benchmarks:

Intel Celeron 900 @ 2.20GHz: 778

AMD Athlon II Dual-Core M320: 1236

The AMD Athlon II is way better.

The AMD is the clear choice. The difference between single and dual core is huge. Believe me the $100 dollar extra isn't for nothing. Also, celerons generally suck. Bottom line, get the AMD.