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 N3150

Intel Celeron N3150

CPUBoss Winner

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i3 2100T

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i3 2100T

Report a correction
Significantly higher clock speed 2.5 GHz vs 1.6 GHz More than 55% higher clock speed
Much higher GPU clock speed 650 MHz vs 320 MHz More than 2x higher GPU clock speed
Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score 1,259 vs 470 Around 2.8x better PassMark (Single core) score
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.65 GHz vs 1.75 GHz More than 50% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score 3,971 vs 2,712 More than 45% better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.62 GHz vs 1.6 GHz Around 65% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Front view of Intel Celeron N3150

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron N3150

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
Much newer manufacturing process 14 nm vs 32 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Significantly lower typical power consumption 4.88W vs 28.44W 5.8x lower typical power consumption
Much better performance per watt 10.68 pt/W vs 4 pt/W Around 2.8x better performance per watt
Much better performance per dollar 0.6 pt/$ vs 0.02 pt/$ Around 29.5x better performance per dollar
More number of displays supported 3 vs 2 1 more number of displays supported
More cores 4 vs 2 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Newer Jan, 2015 vs Jan, 2011 Release date over 4 years later
Significantly lower annual home energy cost 1.45 $/year vs 8.43 $/year 5.8x lower annual home energy cost
Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost 5.26 $/year vs 30.66 $/year 5.8x lower annual commercial energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i3 2100T vs Celeron N3150

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

Core i3 2100T
125,100 MB/s
Celeron N3150
335.9 MB/s

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i3 2100T  vs
Celeron N3150 
Clock speed 2.5 GHz 1.6 GHz
Cores Dual core Quad core

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing No No
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
SSE4
AVX
SSE3
SSE
SSE4.1
SSE4.2
Supplemental SSE3
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 35W 6W
Annual home energy cost 8.43 $/year 1.45 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 30.66 $/year 5.26 $/year
Performance per watt 4 pt/W 10.68 pt/W
Typical power consumption 28.44W 4.88W

bus

Architecture DMI FSB
Number of links 1 1

details

Core i3 2100T  vs
Celeron N3150 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 4
L2 cache 1 MB 2 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nm 14 nm
Max CPUs 1 1

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 2.65 GHz 1.75 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.62 GHz 1.6 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.65 GHz 1.75 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU GPU GPU
Label Intel® HD Graphics 2000 Intel® HD Graphics
Number of displays supported 2 3
GPU clock speed 650 MHz 320 MHz

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3L-1600
DDR3-1333
DDR3-1066
DDR3
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Maximum bandwidth 21,333.32 MB/s 25,600 MB/s
Maximum memory size 32,768 MB 8,192 MB
Intel Core i3 2100T
Report a correction
Intel Celeron N3150
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus