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

CPUBoss Score

Performance, Single-core Performance, Power Consumption and Features

Winner
Intel Celeron 1000M 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Celeron 1000M  based on its .

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
Front view of Intel Celeron 1000M

Intel Celeron 1000M

CPUBoss Winner

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
Better performance per watt 13.58 pt/W vs 7.55 pt/W Around 80% better performance per watt
Significantly lower annual home energy cost 2.41 $/year vs 8.43 $/year 3.5x lower annual home energy cost
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
Newer manufacturing process 22 nms vs 45 nms 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
Better PassMark (Single core) score 950 vs 495 More than 90% better PassMark (Single core) score
Significantly better performance per dollar 3.53 pt/$ vs 1.01 pt/$ Around 3.5x better performance per dollar
Marginally 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 PassMark score 1,705 vs 808 More than 2x better PassMark score
Better geekbench (32-bit) score 2,392 vs 1,168 More than 2x better geekbench (32-bit) score

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
MMX
SSE
SSE4.2
SSE3
SSE2
Supplemental SSE3
SSE4.1
SSE4
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 10W 35W
Annual home energy cost 2.41 $/year 8.43 $/year
Performance per watt 13.58 pt/W 7.55 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 nms 22 nms
Max CPUs 1 1

gpu

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