CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of SU2300 vs 50 among all CPUs

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

Sky Diver and Cloud Gate

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

7.6

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Celeron SU2300 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Celeron SU2300  based on its performance and single-core performance.

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

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Celeron SU2300

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron SU2300

Report a correction
Much better 3DMark06 CPU score 1,000 vs 19.8 More than 50.5x better 3DMark06 CPU score
Much better geekbench 3 AES single core score 51,300 MB/s vs 32,500 MB/s Around 60% better geekbench 3 AES single core score
Higher clock speed 1.2 GHz vs 1 GHz Around 20% higher clock speed
Better performance per watt 5.18 pt/W vs 3.24 pt/W More than 60% better performance per watt
Better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score 1,221 vs 722 Around 70% better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score
Front view of AMD C 50

Reasons to consider the
AMD C 50

Report a correction
Significantly more l2 cache 2 MB vs 1 MB 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Newer manufacturing process 40 nm vs 45 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
Newer Jan, 2011 vs Sep, 2009 Release date over 1 years later

Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron SU2300 vs AMD C 50

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Celeron SU2300
51,300 MB/s
AMD C 50
32,500 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench

3D Mark 06 (CPU)

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Celeron SU2300  vs
AMD C 50 
Clock speed 1.2 GHz 1 GHz
Cores Dual core Dual core

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
SSE2
MMX
SSE3
SSE
AMD64
AMD-V
Supplemental SSE3
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

details

Celeron SU2300  vs
AMD C 50 
Threads 2 2
L2 cache 1 MB 2 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 45 nm 40 nm
Max CPUs 1 1

integrated graphics

GPU None GPU
Label N/A Radeon™ HD 6250
Latest DirectX N/A 11.0
GPU clock speed N/A 276 MHz

power consumption

TDP 10W 9W
Annual home energy cost 2.41 $/year 2.17 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 8.76 $/year 7.88 $/year
Performance per watt 5.18 pt/W 3.24 pt/W
Typical power consumption 8.13W 7.31W
Intel Celeron SU2300
Report a correction
AMD C 50
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus