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 Celeron 3215U

Intel Celeron 3215U

CPUBoss Winner

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Celeron N2840

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron N2840

Report a correction
Higher clock speed 2.16 GHz vs 1.7 GHz More than 25% higher clock speed
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
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.58 GHz vs 1.7 GHz More than 50% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
More l2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
Lower typical power consumption 6.09W vs 12.19W 2x lower typical power consumption
Better performance per watt 7.05 pt/W vs 5.62 pt/W More than 25% better performance per watt
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.17 GHz vs 1.7 GHz More than 25% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Lower annual home energy cost 1.81 $/year vs 3.61 $/year 2x lower annual home energy cost
Lower annual commercial energy cost 6.57 $/year vs 13.14 $/year 2x lower annual commercial energy cost
Front view of Intel Celeron 3215U

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron 3215U

Report a correction
Significantly newer manufacturing process 14 nm vs 22 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
More number of displays supported 3 vs 2 1 more number of displays supported
Significantly better performance per dollar 0.79 pt/$ vs 0.49 pt/$ Around 60% better performance per dollar
Better turbo clock speed 850 MHz vs 792 MHz More than 5% better turbo clock speed
Better PassMark (Single core) score 883 vs 552 Around 60% better PassMark (Single core) score
Newer Apr, 2015 vs Jul, 2014 Release date 9 months later

Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron N2840 vs 3215U

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Celeron N2840  vs
3215U 
Clock speed 2.16 GHz 1.7 GHz
Cores Dual core Dual core

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

integrated graphics

GPU GPU GPU
Label Intel® HD Graphics Intel® HD Graphics
Number of displays supported 2 3
GPU clock speed 311 MHz 300 MHz
Turbo clock speed 792 MHz 850 MHz

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Maximum bandwidth 12,800 MB/s 12,800 MB/s
Maximum memory size 8,192 MB 16,384 MB

details

Celeron N2840  vs
3215U 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 2 2
L2 cache 1 MB 0.5 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 0.25 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 14 nm
Max CPUs 1 1

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 2.58 GHz 1.7 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.17 GHz 1.7 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.58 GHz 1.7 GHz

power consumption

TDP 7.5W 15W
Annual home energy cost 1.81 $/year 3.61 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 6.57 $/year 13.14 $/year
Performance per watt 7.05 pt/W 5.62 pt/W
Typical power consumption 6.09W 12.19W

bus

Architecture FSB DMI 2.0
Number of links 1 1
Intel Celeron N2840
Report a correction
Intel Celeron 3215U
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

Showing 1 comment.
How can 3215U be cooler when it has twice the power consumption?
comments powered by Disqus