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 M 440

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of Intel Celeron M 440

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Celeron M 440

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron M 440

Report a correction
Much better 3DMark06 CPU score 980 vs 490 2x better 3DMark06 CPU score
Much better geekbench 3 AES single core score 74,050 MB/s vs 25,700 MB/s Around 3x better geekbench 3 AES single core score
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 2 GHz vs 1.66 GHz More than 20% higher clock speed
Much better performance per dollar 1.24 pt/$ vs 0.39 pt/$ Around 3.2x better performance per dollar
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.57 GHz vs 1.88 GHz Around 90% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.98 GHz vs 1.67 GHz Around 2.5x better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Front view of Intel Atom N455

Reasons to consider the
Intel Atom N455

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
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
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
Significantly lower typical power consumption 5.28W vs 28.44W 5.4x lower typical power consumption
Newer Jun, 2010 vs Jul, 2006 Release date over 3 years later
Better performance per watt 3.88 pt/W vs 1.7 pt/W More than 2.2x better performance per watt
Significantly lower annual home energy cost 1.57 $/year vs 8.43 $/year 5.4x lower annual home energy cost
Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost 5.69 $/year vs 30.66 $/year 5.4x lower annual commercial energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron M 440 vs Atom N455

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 M 440
74,050 MB/s
Atom N455
25,700 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench

3D Mark 06 (CPU)

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Celeron M 440  vs
Atom N455 
Clock speed 2 GHz 1.66 GHz
Cores Single core Single core

features

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

power consumption

TDP 35W 6.5W
Annual home energy cost 8.43 $/year 1.57 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 30.66 $/year 5.69 $/year
Performance per watt 1.7 pt/W 3.88 pt/W
Typical power consumption 28.44W 5.28W

bus

Architecture FSB DMI
Number of links 1 1

details

Celeron M 440  vs
Atom N455 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 1 2
L2 cache 1 MB 0.5 MB
L2 cache per core 1 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 65 nm 45 nm
Transistor count 105,000,000 123,000,000
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 10 10

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 3.57 GHz 1.88 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.98 GHz 1.67 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 1,585.7 266.6
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.57 GHz 1.88 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU None GPU
Label N/A Integrated
GPU clock speed N/A 200 MHz

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Intel Celeron M 440
Report a correction
Intel Atom N455
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus