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 |
![]() | 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 |
![]() | Higher clock speed 2.4 GHz | ![]() | Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.4 GHz |
![]() | Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.4 GHz |
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 |
| |||||||
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) |
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 ![]() | Intel Atom C2558 ![]() |
![]() | 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 | ||
![]() | 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 | ||