Winner
Intel Atom E3845
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Atom E3845 based on its power consumption and value.
See full details Intel Atom E3845 vs C2558 |
Released October, 2013
Intel Atom E3845
- 1.91 GHz
- Quad core
7.6 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Intel Atom E3845
 | Much better geekbench 3 AES single core score 317,450 MB/s | | Has a built-in GPU Yes |
| | Much better performance per dollar 2.19 pt/$ | | Much better performance per watt 11.4 pt/W |
VS
Released July, 2013
Intel Atom C2558
- 2.4 GHz
- Quad core
4.7 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the C2558
| | Higher clock speed 2.4 GHz | | Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.4 GHz |
| | Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.4 GHz |
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E3845 vs C2558 among all CPUs
Performance | |
Benchmark performance using all cores | |
| PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more | |
Single-core Performance | |
Individual core benchmark performance | |
| PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more | |
Integrated Graphics | |
Integrated GPU performance for graphics | |
| Sky Diver and Cloud Gate | |
Integrated Graphics (OpenCL) | |
Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more | |
Performance per Watt | |
How efficiently does the processor use electricity? | |
| Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more | |
Value | |
Are you paying a premium for performance? | |
| Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more | |
| 7.6 | CPUBoss Score |
Combination of all six facets | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Much better geekbench 3 AES single core score | 317,450 MB/s | vs | 396.2 MB/s | Around 801.2x better geekbench 3 AES single core score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Has a built-in GPU | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required | |||
| Much better performance per dollar | 2.19 pt/$ | vs | 0.61 pt/$ | More than 3.5x better performance per dollar | |||
| Much better performance per watt | 11.4 pt/W | vs | 4.2 pt/W | Around 2.8x better performance per watt | |||
| Slightly lower typical power consumption | 8.13W | vs | 12.19W | Around 35% lower typical power consumption | |||
| Newer | Oct, 2013 | vs | Jul, 2013 | Release date 3 months later | |||
| Slightly lower annual home energy cost | 2.41 $/year | vs | 3.61 $/year | Around 35% lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Slightly lower annual commercial energy cost | 8.76 $/year | vs | 13.14 $/year | Around 35% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| |||||||
| Higher clock speed | 2.4 GHz | vs | 1.91 GHz | More than 25% higher clock speed | |||
| Better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 2.4 GHz | vs | 1.92 GHz | More than 25% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
| Better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 2.4 GHz | vs | 1.91 GHz | More than 25% better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Atom E3845 vs C2558
GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
PassMark (Single Core)
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Atom E3845 | vs | C2558 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 1.91 GHz | 2.4 GHz | |
| Cores | Quad core | Quad core | |
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Instruction set extensions | |||
| AES | |||
| EM64T | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | No | No | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 10W | 15W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 2.41 $/year | 3.61 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 8.76 $/year | 13.14 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 11.4 pt/W | 4.2 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 8.13W | 12.19W | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | FSB | FSB | |
| Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
details | Atom E3845 | vs | C2558 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 4 | 4 | |
| Manufacture process | 22 nm | 22 nm | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclocked clock speed | 1.92 GHz | 2.4 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 1.91 GHz | 2.4 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 1.92 GHz | 2.4 GHz | |
integrated graphics | |||
| GPU | GPU | None | |
| Label | HD | N/A | |
| Number of displays supported | 2 | N/A | |
| GPU clock speed | 542 MHz | N/A | |
| Turbo clock speed | 792 MHz | N/A | |
memory controller | |||
| Memory controller | Built-in | Built-in | |
| Memory type | |||
| DDR3L-1333 | |||
| DDR3 | |||
| Channels | Dual Channel | Dual Channel | |
| Supports ECC | Yes | Yes | |
| Maximum bandwidth | 12,800 MB/s | 12,800 MB/s | |
| Maximum memory size | 8,192 MB | 65,536 MB | |
 Intel Atom E3845  Report a correction |  Intel Atom C2558 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $52 | $107 | |
| E3845 vs N2807 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $52 | $82 | |
| E3845 vs J1900 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $52 | ||
| E3845 vs J3160 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $52 | ||
| E3845 vs E3950 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $52 | ||
| E3845 vs N4200 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $52 | ||
| E3845 vs E3940 | ||
 | VS | |
| $104 | $82 | |
| C2558 vs J1900 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $305 | $300 | |
| W3520 vs 2500 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $272 | $350 | |
| 4790K vs 6700K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 4200U vs 6410 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 6200U vs 7th Gen A9-9410 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $275 | $161 | |
| 4005U vs N3540 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $248 | $230 | |
| 4770K vs 9590 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $180 | ||
| 3470 vs 5200 | ||
