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 N2800

Intel Atom N2800

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 285 More than 70% better PassMark (Single core) score
Front view of Intel Atom N2800

Reasons to consider the
Intel Atom N2800

Report a correction
Much newer manufacturing process 32 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
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Higher clock speed 1.86 GHz vs 1.33 GHz Around 40% higher clock speed
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
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
Lower typical power consumption 5.28W vs 21.94W 4.2x lower typical power consumption
Significantly better performance per watt 5.28 pt/W vs 1.26 pt/W Around 4.2x 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
Lower annual home energy cost 1.57 $/year vs 6.5 $/year 4.2x lower annual home energy cost
Lower annual commercial energy cost 5.69 $/year vs 23.65 $/year 4.2x lower annual commercial energy cost
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 1.87 GHz vs 1.33 GHz More than 40% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron M 215 vs Atom N2800

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 N2800 
Clock speed 1.33 GHz 1.86 GHz
Cores Single core Dual core

features

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

power consumption

TDP 27W 6.5W
Annual home energy cost 6.5 $/year 1.57 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 23.65 $/year 5.69 $/year
Performance per watt 1.26 pt/W 5.28 pt/W
Typical power consumption 21.94W 5.28W

details

Celeron M 215  vs
Atom N2800 
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 32 nm
Max CPUs 1 1

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 1.73 GHz 1.87 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 1.33 GHz 1.87 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 1.73 GHz 1.87 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU None GPU
Label N/A Integrated
GPU clock speed N/A 640 MHz

bus

Architecture FSB DMI
Number of links 1 1
Intel Celeron M 215
Report a correction
Intel Atom N2800
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus