, , , , , ,
zu verknüpfen.
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
 

Intel Celeron M 723 vs Intel Celeron M 743

Intel Celeron M 723

► remove from comparison

Der Intel Celeron M ULV 723 ist ein Einkernprozessor für kleine Notebooks / Subnotebooks / Netbooks. Er basiert auf den Penryn Kern, bietet jedoch deutlich weniger Features. Neben Virtualization VT-x und Trusted Execution, fehlen dem ULV723 wichtige Stromsparfunktionen wie Speedstep. Dadurch verbraucht die CPU bei geringer Last deutlich mehr Strom.

Die Performance des Celeron 723 liegt im Schnitt nur etwas oberhalb der gängigen Intel Atom Prozessoren (wie z.B. N470). In Teilbereichen wie dem SuperPi Benchmark kann er sich jedoch deutlich absetzen. Insgesamt ist die Performance nur für anspruchslose Tätigkeiten ausreichend.

Intel Celeron M 743

► remove from comparison

Der Intel Celeron M ULV 743 ist ein Notebook Prozessor für sehr kleine und leichte Notebooks. Dank 10 Watt TDP eignet er sich für die Geräteklasse oberhalb der Netbooks und bietet im Vergleich zum Atom N450 auch eine spürbar bessere (Einzelkern) Performance. 

Der Celeron M ULV 743 basiert auf den Penryn Kern, jedoch wurden fast alle Features deaktiviert. Z.B. fehlen dem Celeron 743 Speedstep zur dynamischen Taktung, 64 Bit Erweiterungen und Virtualisierungsfunktionen in Hardware. Durch die fehlenden Stromsparfunktionen, ist der Celeron im Schnitt deutlich stromhungriger als Core 2 / Pentium oder Atom Prozessoren in diesem TDP Bereich.

ModelIntel Celeron M 723Intel Celeron M 743
SeriesIntel Celeron MIntel Celeron M
CodenamePenrynPenryn
Serie: Celeron M Penryn
Intel Celeron M 925 compare2.3 GHz1 / 1
Intel Celeron M 900 compare2.2 GHz1 / 1
Intel Celeron M 763 compare1.4 GHz1 / 1
Intel Celeron M 7431.3 GHz1 / 1
» Intel Celeron M 7231.2 GHz1 / 1
Intel Celeron M 722 compare1.2 GHz1 / 1
Intel Celeron M 925 compare2.3 GHz1 / 1
Intel Celeron M 900 compare2.2 GHz1 / 1
Intel Celeron M 763 compare1.4 GHz1 / 1
» Intel Celeron M 7431.3 GHz1 / 1
Intel Celeron M 7231.2 GHz1 / 1
Intel Celeron M 722 compare1.2 GHz1 / 1
Clock1200 MHz1300 MHz
FSB800800
L2 Cache1 MB1 MB
Cores / Threads1 / 11 / 1
TDP5 Watt10 Watt
Transistors410 Million410 Million
45 nm1.05-1.15V45 nm0.775 - 1.1 V
Die Size107 mm2107 mm2
max. Temp.100 °C100 °C
SocketBGA956BGA965
Architecturex86x86
Announced
ManufacturerIntel Celeron M 723Intel Celeron M 743
L1 Cache64 KB
$107 U.S.

Benchmarks

Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Rend. Single (32bit)
100%
723 +
1180 Points (11%)
112%
743 +
min: 1230     avg: 1303     median: 1324 (12%)     max: 1356 Points
Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Rend. Single (64bit)
100%
1 743 +
1398 Points (9%)
wPrime 2.10 - wPrime 2.0 32m *
100%
723 +
129 s (26%)
102%
743 +
122 s (25%)
wPrime 2.10 - wPrime 2.0 1024m *
100%
1 743 +
3886 s (46%)
3DMark 06 - CPU - 3DMark 06 - CPU
100%
723 +
555 Points (1%)
105%
743 +
min: 557     avg: 582     median: 581.5 (1%)     max: 606 Points
Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 1M - Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 1M *
100%
723 +
43.6 s (9%)
100%
743 +
min: 41     avg: 41.9     median: 41.9 (9%)     max: 42.7 s
Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 2M - Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 2M *
100%
1 743 +
min: 95     avg: 98.5     median: 98.5 (4%)     max: 102 s
Super Pi Mod 1.5 XS 32M - Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 32M *
100%
1 743 +
2252 s (10%)
SiSoft Sandra Dhrystone (MIPS) - SiSoft Sandra Dhrystone (MIPS)
100%
1 743 +
min: 5120     avg: 5607     median: 5606.5 (3%)     max: 6093 MIPS
SiSoft Sandra Whetstone (MFLOPS) - SiSoft Sandra Whetstone (MFLOPS)
100%
1 743 +
min: 4410     avg: 4571     median: 4571 (4%)     max: 4732 MFLOPS
PCMark 05 - PCMark 05 - Standard
100%
723 +
1776 Points (11%)
108%
743 +
1913 Points (12%)
Windows 7 Experience Index - Win7 CPU
100%
1 743 +
3.1 Points (40%)

Average Benchmarks Intel Celeron M 723 → 100% n=5

Average Benchmarks Intel Celeron M 743 → 105% n=5

- Bereich der Benchmarkergebnisse für diese Grafikkarte
- Durchschnittliche Benchmarkergebnisse für diese Grafikkarte
* Smaller numbers mean a higher performance
1 This benchmark is not used for the average calculation

Add one or more devices and compare

In the following list you can select (and also search for) devices that should be added to the comparison. You can select more than one device.

restrict list:

show all (including archived), 2022, 2021
v1.17
log 23. 02:07:27

#0 checking url part for id 433 +0s ... 0s

#1 checking url part for id 495 +0s ... 0s

#2 not redirecting to Ajax server +0s ... 0s

#3 did not recreate cache, as it is less than 5 days old! Created at Tue, 18 Jan 2022 12:10:47 +0100 +0s ... 0s

#4 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.002s ... 0.002s

#5 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s ... 0.003s

#6 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s ... 0.004s

#7 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.004s

#8 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.004s

#9 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.004s

#10 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.004s

#11 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.004s

#12 composed specs +0s ... 0.004s

#13 did output specs +0s ... 0.004s

#14 getting avg benchmarks for device 433 +0s ... 0.005s

#15 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.005s

#16 got single benchmarks 433 +0.007s ... 0.012s

#17 getting avg benchmarks for device 495 +0s ... 0.013s

#18 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.013s

#19 got single benchmarks 495 +0.008s ... 0.022s

#20 got avg benchmarks for devices +0s ... 0.022s

#21 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.022s

#22 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s ... 0.022s

#23 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s ... 0.023s

#24 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.024s

#25 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.024s

#26 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.024s

#27 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.025s

#28 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.025s

#29 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.025s

#30 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.026s

#31 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.026s

#32 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.026s

#33 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.026s

#34 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.026s

#35 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.027s

#36 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.027s

#37 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.027s

#38 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.028s

#39 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.028s

#40 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s ... 0.028s

#41 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.029s

#42 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.029s

#43 min, max, avg, median took s +0s ... 0.029s

#44 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.029s

#45 return log +0.004s ... 0.033s

Teilen Sie diesen Artikel um uns zu unterstützen. Jeder Link hilft!
> Notebook Test, Laptop Test und News > Benchmarks / Technik > Benchmarks / Technik > Prozessor Vergleich - Head 2 Head
Autor: Redaktion,  8.09.2017 (Update: 19.05.2020)