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 N2930

Front view of Intel Celeron N2930
Front view of Intel Atom C2558

Intel Atom C2558

Join the discussion

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Celeron N2930

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron N2930

Report a correction
Much better geekbench 3 AES single core score 50,800 MB/s vs 396.2 MB/s Around 128.2x better geekbench 3 AES single core score
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 better performance per watt 7.05 pt/W vs 4.2 pt/W Around 70% better performance per watt
Lower typical power consumption 6.09W vs 12.19W 2x lower typical power consumption
Newer Feb, 2014 vs Jul, 2013 Release date 7 months later
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 Atom C2558

Reasons to consider the
Intel Atom C2558

Report a correction
Higher clock speed 2.4 GHz vs 1.83 GHz More than 30% higher clock speed
Better performance per dollar 0.61 pt/$ vs 0.44 pt/$ More than 35% better performance per dollar
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.4 GHz vs 2.16 GHz More than 10% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.4 GHz vs 2.16 GHz More than 10% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron N2930 vs Atom C2558

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Celeron N2930
2,615
Atom C2558
3,118

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Celeron N2930
823
Atom C2558
982

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Celeron N2930
50,800 MB/s
Atom C2558
396.2 MB/s

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Celeron N2930
1,638
Atom C2558
2,169

PassMark (Single Core)

Celeron N2930
465
Atom C2558
551

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

 Celeron N2930  vs
Atom C2558 
Clock speed 1.83 GHz 2.4 GHz
Cores Quad core Quad core

features
Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
SSE3
EM64T
SSE
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes No

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 4.2 pt/W
Typical power consumption 6.09W 12.19W

bus
Architecture FSB FSB
Number of links 1 1

details

 Celeron N2930  vs
Atom C2558 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 4
Manufacture process 22 nm 22 nm
Max CPUs 1 1

overclocking
Overclocked clock speed 2.16 GHz 2.4 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.16 GHz 2.4 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.16 GHz 2.4 GHz

integrated graphics
GPU GPU None
Label Intel® HD Graphics N/A
Number of displays supported 2 N/A
GPU clock speed 313 MHz N/A
Turbo clock speed 854 MHz N/A

memory controller
Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC No Yes
Maximum bandwidth 12,800 MB/s 12,800 MB/s
Maximum memory size 8,192 MB 65,536 MB
Intel Celeron N2930
Report a correction
Intel Atom C2558
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus

features

information

  • terms and privacy
  • about
  • blog

on the web

CPUBoss