CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of N2815 vs 3400M


Benchmark performance using all cores

PassMark and GeekBench (32-bit)

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

PassMark (Single Core)

Power Consumption

How much power does the processor require?



How does CPUBoss rank the features of each product?

Features and specifications that differ between products

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!

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Celeron N2815

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron N2815

Report a correction
Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 32 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Higher clock speed 1.86 GHz vs 1.4 GHz Around 35% higher clock speed
Much higher GPU clock speed 844 MHz vs 400 MHz More than 2x higher GPU clock speed
Significantly lower typical power consumption 6.09W vs 28.44W 4.7x lower typical power consumption
Newer Nov, 2013 vs Jun, 2011 Release date over 2 years later
Better performance per watt 17.6 pt/W vs 7.98 pt/W Around 2.2x better performance per watt
Significantly lower annual home energy cost 1.81 $/year vs 8.43 $/year 4.7x lower annual home energy cost
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 1.87 GHz vs 1.4 GHz Around 35% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Front view of AMD A6 3400M

Reasons to consider the
AMD A6 3400M

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 4 MB vs 1 MB 4x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much better performance per dollar 34.89 pt/$ vs 1 pt/$ Around 35x better performance per dollar
More cores 4 vs 2 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Slightly higher turbo clock speed 2.3 GHz vs 2.13 GHz Around 10% higher turbo clock speed
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
More threads 4 vs 2 Twice as many threads
Better geekbench (32-bit) score 2,858 vs 1,308 Around 2.2x better geekbench (32-bit) score
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.68 GHz vs 2.13 GHz More than 25% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Better PassMark score 1,940 vs 882 Around 2.2x better PassMark score

Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron N2815 vs A6 3400M

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

A6 3400M


A6 3400M

PassMark Data courtesy PassMark

PassMark (Single Core) Data courtesy PassMark

Specifications Full list of technical specs


Celeron N2815  vs
A6 3400M 
Clock speed 1.86 GHz 1.4 GHz
Turbo clock speed 2.13 GHz 2.3 GHz
Cores Dual core Quad core
Is unlocked No No


Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
Supplemental SSE3
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 7.5W 35W
Annual home energy cost 1.81 $/year 8.43 $/year
Performance per watt 17.6 pt/W 7.98 pt/W
Typical power consumption 6.09W 28.44W


Celeron N2815  vs
A6 3400M 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 2 4
L2 cache 1 MB 4 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 1 1


Overclocked clock speed 2.13 GHz 2.68 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 1.87 GHz 1.4 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.13 GHz 2.68 GHz

integrated graphics

Label Intel® HD Graphics Radeon™ HD 6520G
GPU clock speed 844 MHz 400 MHz

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
Intel Celeron N2815
Report a correction
AMD A6 3400M
Report a correction

Read more


comments powered by Disqus