CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of N2820 vs 1000M

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

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

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Celeron N2820

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron N2820

Report a correction
Higher clock speed 2.13 GHz vs 1.8 GHz Around 20% higher clock speed
Significantly lower typical power consumption 6.09W vs 28.44W 4.7x lower typical power consumption
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.4 GHz vs 1.8 GHz Around 35% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Better performance per watt 19.98 pt/W vs 7.38 pt/W Around 2.8x better performance per watt
Significantly lower annual home energy cost 1.81 $/year vs 8.43 $/year 4.7x lower annual home energy cost
Newer Nov, 2013 vs Jan, 2013 Release date 9 months later
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.13 GHz vs 1.8 GHz Around 20% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Front view of Intel Celeron 1000M

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron 1000M

Report a correction
Much higher GPU clock speed 650 MHz vs 313 MHz More than 2x higher GPU clock speed
More number of displays supported 3 vs 2 1 more number of displays supported
Supports more RAM 32,768 MB vs 8,192 MB Supports 4x more RAM
Better turbo clock speed 1,000 MHz vs 756 MHz More than 30% better turbo clock speed
Much better performance per dollar 5.32 pt/$ vs 1.02 pt/$ Around 5.2x better performance per dollar
Better PassMark (Single core) score 950 vs 520 Around 85% better PassMark (Single core) score
Better geekbench (32-bit) score 2,375 vs 1,452 Around 65% better geekbench (32-bit) score
Slightly better PassMark score 1,671 vs 995 Around 70% better PassMark score

Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron N2820 vs 1000M

GeekBench (32-bit)

GeekBench

Passmark

Passmark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Celeron N2820  vs
1000M 
Clock speed 2.13 GHz 1.8 GHz
Cores Dual core Dual core
Socket type
BGA 1170
rPGA 988B
Is hyperthreaded No No

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing No No
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
SSE4
SSE3
EM64T
SSE
SSE4.1
SSE4.2
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 19.98 pt/W 7.38 pt/W
Typical power consumption 6.09W 28.44W

bus

Architecture FSB DMI
Number of links 1 1

details

Celeron N2820  vs
1000M 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 2 2
L2 cache 1 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 22 nm
Max CPUs 1 1

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 2.4 GHz 1.8 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.13 GHz 1.8 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.4 GHz 1.8 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU GPU GPU
Label Intel® HD Graphics Intel® HD Graphics
Number of displays supported 2 3
GPU clock speed 313 MHz 650 MHz
Turbo clock speed 756 MHz 1,000 MHz

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3L-1066
DDR3
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC No No
Maximum bandwidth 12,800 MB/s 12,800 MB/s
Maximum memory size 8,192 MB 32,768 MB
Intel Celeron N2820
Report a correction
Intel Celeron 1000M
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus