CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of SU2300 vs 1000M

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

3DMark06 (CPU), 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 SU2300

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron SU2300

Report a correction
Significantly lower typical power consumption 8.13W vs 28.44W 3.5x lower typical power consumption
Significantly lower annual home energy cost 2.41 $/year vs 8.43 $/year 3.5x lower annual home energy cost
Slightly better performance per watt 13.47 pt/W vs 7.46 pt/W More than 80% better performance per watt
Front view of Intel Celeron 1000M

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron 1000M

Report a correction
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 45 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Higher clock speed 1.8 GHz vs 1.2 GHz More than 50% higher clock speed
Much better performance per dollar 5.38 pt/$ vs 1 pt/$ More than 5.2x better performance per dollar
Better PassMark (Single core) score 950 vs 495 More than 90% better PassMark (Single core) score
Newer Jan, 2013 vs Sep, 2009 Release date over 3 years later
Better 3DMark06 CPU score 1,923 vs 1,000 More than 90% better 3DMark06 CPU score
Better geekbench (32-bit) score 2,375 vs 1,168 More than 2x better geekbench (32-bit) score
Better PassMark score 1,671 vs 814 More than 2x better PassMark score
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 1.8 GHz vs 1.44 GHz More than 25% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 1.8 GHz vs 1.2 GHz More than 50% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron SU2300 vs 1000M

GeekBench

3D Mark 06 (CPU)

Celeron SU2300 Celeron 1000M @ notebookcheck.net

Passmark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Celeron SU2300  vs
1000M 
Clock speed 1.2 GHz 1.8 GHz
Cores Dual core Dual core
Socket type
BGA 956
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
SSE
SSE4.1
SSE4.2
Supplemental SSE3
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 10W 35W
Annual home energy cost 2.41 $/year 8.43 $/year
Performance per watt 13.47 pt/W 7.46 pt/W
Typical power consumption 8.13W 28.44W

details

Celeron SU2300  vs
1000M 
Threads 2 2
L2 cache 1 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 45 nm 22 nm
Max CPUs 1 1

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 1.44 GHz 1.8 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 1.2 GHz 1.8 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 1.44 GHz 1.8 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU None GPU
Label N/A Intel® HD Graphics
Number of displays supported N/A 3
GPU clock speed N/A 650 MHz
Turbo clock speed N/A 1,000 MHz

bus

Architecture FSB DMI
Number of links 1 1
Clock speed 800 MHz 100 MHz
Intel Celeron SU2300
Report a correction
Intel Celeron 1000M
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus