CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 215 vs 330 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

No winner declared

Too close to call

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 330

Intel Atom 330

CPUBoss Winner

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Celeron M 215

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron M 215

Report a correction
Better PassMark (Single core) score 487 vs 252 Around 95% better PassMark (Single core) score
Front view of Intel Atom 330

Reasons to consider the
Intel Atom 330

Report a correction
Much newer manufacturing process 45 nm vs 65 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
More advanced architecture x86-64 vs x86 A 64-bit architecture allows more RAM to be installed and accessed by the processor
More l2 cache 1 MB vs 0.5 MB 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Higher clock speed 1.6 GHz vs 1.33 GHz More than 20% higher clock speed
Lower typical power consumption 6.5W vs 21.94W 3.4x lower typical power consumption
Better performance per watt 3.77 pt/W vs 1.26 pt/W More than 3x better performance per watt
More threads 4 vs 1 3 more threads
More cores 2 vs 1 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.05 GHz vs 1.73 GHz Around 20% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Lower annual home energy cost 1.93 $/year vs 6.5 $/year 3.4x lower annual home energy cost
Lower annual commercial energy cost 7.01 $/year vs 23.65 $/year 3.4x lower annual commercial energy cost
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 1.6 GHz vs 1.33 GHz More than 20% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron M 215 vs Atom 330

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Celeron M 215  vs
Atom 330 
Clock speed 1.33 GHz 1.6 GHz
Cores Single core Dual core
Socket type
479
437

features

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

power consumption

TDP 27W 8W
Annual home energy cost 6.5 $/year 1.93 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 23.65 $/year 7.01 $/year
Performance per watt 1.26 pt/W 3.77 pt/W
Typical power consumption 21.94W 6.5W

details

Celeron M 215  vs
Atom 330 
Architecture x86 x86-64
Threads 1 4
L2 cache 0.5 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 65 nm 45 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 10 12

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 1.73 GHz 2.05 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 1.33 GHz 1.6 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 1.73 GHz 2.05 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU None None
Label N/A N/A
Latest DirectX N/A N/A
Number of displays supported N/A N/A
GPU clock speed N/A N/A
Turbo clock speed N/A N/A
3DMark06 N/A N/A

bus

Architecture FSB FSB
Number of links 1 1
Clock speed 533 MHz 533 MHz
Intel Celeron M 215
Report a correction
Intel Atom 330
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus