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

Intel Celeron E3400

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of Intel Celeron E3400

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Celeron E3400

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron E3400

Report a correction
Much better geekbench 3 AES single core score 110,600 MB/s vs 29.2 MB/s Around 3787.8x better geekbench 3 AES single core score
Much better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score 2,275 vs 738 More than 3x better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score
Significantly higher clock speed 2.6 GHz vs 1.86 GHz Around 40% higher clock speed
Much better performance per dollar 2.54 pt/$ vs 0.51 pt/$ Around 5x better performance per dollar
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
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.85 GHz vs 1.87 GHz More than 2x better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Slightly better PassMark score 1,430 vs 406 More than 3.5x better PassMark score
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.6 GHz vs 1.87 GHz Around 40% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Front view of Intel Atom D2500

Reasons to consider the
Intel Atom D2500

Report a correction
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm vs 45 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much lower typical power consumption 8.13W vs 52.81W 6.5x lower typical power consumption
Much higher Maximum operating temperature 100 °C vs 74.1 °C Around 35% higher Maximum operating temperature
Much lower annual home energy cost 2.41 $/year vs 15.66 $/year 6.5x lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 8.76 $/year vs 56.94 $/year 6.5x lower annual commercial energy cost
Newer Sep, 2011 vs Jan, 2010 Release date over 1 years later

Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron E3400 vs Atom D2500

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

Celeron E3400
110,600 MB/s
Atom D2500
29.2 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Celeron E3400  vs
Atom D2500 
Clock speed 2.6 GHz 1.86 GHz
Cores Dual core Dual core

features

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

power consumption

TDP 65W 10W
Annual home energy cost 15.66 $/year 2.41 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 56.94 $/year 8.76 $/year
Performance per watt 1.64 pt/W 2.16 pt/W
Typical power consumption 52.81W 8.13W

details

Celeron E3400  vs
Atom D2500 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 2 2
L2 cache 1 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 45 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Voltage range 0.85 - 1.36V 0.91 - 1.21V
Operating temperature Unknown - 74.1°C Unknown - 100°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 3.85 GHz 1.87 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.6 GHz 1.87 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.85 GHz 1.87 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU None GPU
Label N/A Integrated
Number of displays supported N/A 2
GPU clock speed N/A 400 MHz

bus

Architecture FSB DMI
Number of links 1 1
Intel Celeron E3400
Report a correction
Intel Atom D2500
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus