0 Comments
| Intel Celeron 1037U vs Atom D525 |
Released January, 2013
Intel Celeron 1037U
- 1.8 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the Intel Celeron 1037U
![]() | Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes | ![]() | Has virtualization support Yes |
VS
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Allows for maximum performance when needed, while conserving power and minimizing heat production when not needed | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Has virtualization support | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Boosts performance of virtual machines | |||
| |||||||
CPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the Atom D525 vs the Celeron 1037U. | |||||||
Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron 1037U vs Atom D525
GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Celeron 1037U
2,571
Atom D525
1,038
GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Celeron 1037U
1,468
Atom D525
432
GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Celeron 1037U
94,750 MB/s
Atom D525
28,100 MB/s
GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Celeron 1037U
2,531
Atom D525
1,010
GeekBench
Celeron 1037U
2,531
Atom D525
1,659
3D Mark 06 (CPU)
Celeron 1037U
29.2
Atom D525
891
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
Celeron 1037U
1,733
Atom D525
701
PassMark (Single Core)
Celeron 1037U
952
Atom D525
284
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Celeron 1037U | vs | Atom D525 |
---|---|---|---|
Clock speed | 1.8 GHz | 1.8 GHz | |
Cores | Dual core | Dual core | |
features | |||
Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
Supports trusted computing | No | No | |
Has virtualization support | Yes | No | |
Instruction set extensions | |||
SSE2 | |||
MMX | |||
SSE4 | |||
SSE3 | |||
SSE | |||
SSE4.1 | |||
SSE4.2 | |||
Supplemental SSE3 | |||
Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | No | |
power consumption | |||
TDP | 17W | 13W | |
Annual home energy cost | 4.1 $/year | 3.13 $/year | |
Performance per watt | 5.02 pt/W | 2.62 pt/W | |
Typical power consumption | 13.81W | 10.56W | |
bus | |||
Architecture | DMI | DMI | |
Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
Transfer rate | 5,000 MT/s | 2,500 MT/s |
details | Celeron 1037U | vs | Atom D525 |
---|---|---|---|
Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
Threads | 2 | 4 | |
L2 cache | 1 MB | 1 MB | |
L2 cache per core | 0.5 MB/core | 0.5 MB/core | |
Manufacture process | 22 nm | 45 nm | |
Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
overclocking | |||
Overclocked clock speed | 1.8 GHz | 2.12 GHz | |
Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 1.8 GHz | 1.8 GHz | |
Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 1.8 GHz | 2.12 GHz | |
integrated graphics | |||
GPU | GPU | GPU | |
Label | Intel® HD Graphics | Integrated | |
memory controller | |||
Memory controller | Built-in | Built-in | |
Memory type | |||
DDR3 | |||
DDR3-800 | |||
DDR2-800 | |||
DDR2-667 | |||
DDR2 | |||
Channels | Dual Channel | Single Channel | |
Supports ECC | No | No | |
Maximum bandwidth | 12,800 MB/s | 6,400 MB/s | |
Maximum memory size | 32,768 MB | 4,096 MB |
Intel Celeron 1037U ![]() | Intel Atom D525 ![]() |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$82 | $75 | |
J1900 vs 1037U | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$225 | $75 | |
3217U vs 1037U | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$72 | $75 | |
J1800 vs 1037U | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$47 | $75 | |
D2550 vs 1037U | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$47 | $63 | |
D2550 vs D525 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$82 | $63 | |
J1900 vs D525 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$225 | $63 | |
3217U vs D525 | ||
Popular Comparisons
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$300 | $305 | |
2500 vs W3520 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$350 | $272 | |
6700K vs 4790K | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$281 | ||
6410 vs 4200U | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$281 | ||
7th Gen A9-9410 vs 6200U | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$161 | $275 | |
N3540 vs 4005U | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$180 | ||
5200 vs 3470 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$225 | $134 | |
3217U vs 847 | ||