Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS
Front view of Intel Atom E3845

Intel Atom E3845

CPUBoss Winner

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Celeron 827E

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron 827E

Report a correction
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
Better PassMark (Single core) score 704 vs 398 More than 75% better PassMark (Single core) score
Front view of Intel Atom E3845

Reasons to consider the
Intel Atom E3845

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 2 MB vs 0.25 MB 8x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Higher clock speed 1.91 GHz vs 1.4 GHz More than 35% higher clock speed
Much better performance per dollar 2.19 pt/$ vs 0.53 pt/$ Around 4.2x better performance per dollar
Significantly newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 32 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much better performance per watt 11.4 pt/W vs 3.06 pt/W Around 3.8x better performance per watt
Significantly higher GPU clock speed 542 MHz vs 350 MHz Around 55% higher GPU clock speed
More cores 4 vs 1 3 more cores; run more applications at once
More l2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
More threads 4 vs 1 3 more threads
Higher Maximum operating temperature 110 °C vs 100 °C 10% higher Maximum operating temperature
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 1.92 GHz vs 1.4 GHz More than 35% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Lower typical power consumption 8.13W vs 13.81W More than 40% lower typical power consumption
Newer Oct, 2013 vs Jul, 2011 Release date over 2 years later
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 1.91 GHz vs 1.4 GHz More than 35% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Lower annual home energy cost 2.41 $/year vs 4.1 $/year More than 40% lower annual home energy cost
Lower annual commercial energy cost 8.76 $/year vs 14.89 $/year More than 40% lower annual commercial energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron 827E vs Atom E3845

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Celeron 827E  vs
Atom E3845 
Clock speed 1.4 GHz 1.91 GHz
Cores Single core Quad core
Socket type
BGA 1023
BGA 1170

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing No No
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
SSE3
EM64T
SSE
Supplemental SSE3
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes No

power consumption

TDP 17W 10W
Annual home energy cost 4.1 $/year 2.41 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 14.89 $/year 8.76 $/year
Performance per watt 3.06 pt/W 11.4 pt/W
Typical power consumption 13.81W 8.13W

bus

Architecture DMI FSB
Number of links 1 1

details

Celeron 827E  vs
Atom E3845 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 1 4
L2 cache 0.25 MB 2 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nm 22 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 100°C -40 - 110°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 1.4 GHz 1.92 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 1.4 GHz 1.91 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 1.4 GHz 1.92 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU GPU GPU
Label Intel® HD Graphics HD
Number of displays supported 2 2
GPU clock speed 350 MHz 542 MHz
Turbo clock speed 800 MHz 792 MHz

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1333
DDR3-1066
DDR3
DDR3L-1333
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC Yes Yes
Maximum bandwidth 21,333.32 MB/s 12,800 MB/s
Maximum memory size 16,998.4 MB 8,192 MB
Intel Celeron 827E
Report a correction
Intel Atom E3845
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus