CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of N2815 vs 3400M

Performance

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?

TDP

Features

How does CPUBoss rank the features of each product?

Features and specifications that differ between products

CPUBoss Score

Performance, Single-core Performance, Power Consumption and Features

Winner
AMD A6 3400M 

CPUBoss recommends the AMD A6 3400M  based on its .

See full details

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 AMD A6 3400M

AMD A6 3400M

CPUBoss Winner

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Celeron N2815

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron N2815

Report a correction
Newer manufacturing process 22 nms vs 32 nms 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
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 18.09 pt/W vs 8.19 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 33.74 pt/$ vs 1.03 pt/$ More than 32.8x 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
More threads 4 vs 2 Twice as many threads
Significantly more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.66 GHz vs 1.87 GHz More than 40% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Better geekbench (32-bit) score 2,862 vs 1,306 Around 2.2x better geekbench (32-bit) score
Better PassMark score 1,965 vs 882 Around 2.2x better PassMark score

Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron N2815 vs A6 3400M

GeekBench (32-bit)

A6 3400M
2,862

GeekBench

A6 3400M
4,660

Passmark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

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
Is hyperthreaded No No

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction-set-extensions
MMX
SSE
SSE4.2
SSE3
SSE2
EM64T
Supplemental SSE3
SSE4.1
SSE4
SSE4a
3DNow!

gpu

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

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1333
DDR3L-1066

details

Celeron N2815  vs
A6 3400M 
Threads 2 4
L2 cache 1 MB 4 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nms 32 nms
Max CPUs 1 1

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 1.87 GHz 2.66 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 1.87 GHz 1.4 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 1.87 GHz 2.66 GHz

power consumption

TDP 7.5W 35W
Annual home energy cost 1.81 $/year 8.43 $/year
Performance per watt 18.09 pt/W 8.19 pt/W
Typical power consumption 6.09W 28.44W
Intel Celeron N2815
Report a correction
AMD A6 3400M
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus