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 Core i3 3217U

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of Intel Core i3 3217U

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i3 3217U

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i3 3217U

Report a correction
Much better 3DMark06 CPU score 29.1 vs 17.2 Around 70% better 3DMark06 CPU score
Much better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score 2,887 vs 1,244 More than 2.2x better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score
Much better turbo clock speed 1,050 MHz vs 756 MHz Around 40% better turbo clock speed
More number of displays supported 3 vs 2 1 more number of displays supported
Better geekbench 3 single core score 1,441 vs 756 More than 90% better geekbench 3 single core score
Better PassMark score 2,299 vs 774 Around 3x better PassMark score
More threads 4 vs 2 Twice as many threads
Slightly higher GPU clock speed 350 MHz vs 313 MHz More than 10% higher GPU clock speed
Slightly better performance per dollar 0.53 pt/$ vs 0.47 pt/$ Around 15% better performance per dollar
Front view of Intel Celeron N2810

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron N2810

Report a correction
More l2 cache 1 MB vs 0.5 MB 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Higher clock speed 2 GHz vs 1.8 GHz More than 10% higher clock speed
More l2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
Lower typical power consumption 6.09W vs 13.81W 2.3x lower typical power consumption
Newer Jul, 2013 vs Jun, 2012 Release date over a year later
Slightly better overclocked clock speed (Air) 2 GHz vs 1.8 GHz More than 10% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Lower annual home energy cost 1.81 $/year vs 4.1 $/year 2.3x lower annual home energy cost
Lower annual commercial energy cost 6.57 $/year vs 14.89 $/year 2.3x lower annual commercial energy cost
Slightly better overclocked clock speed (Water) 2 GHz vs 1.8 GHz More than 10% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i3 3217U vs Celeron N2810

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 3217U
93,600 MB/s
Celeron N2810
46,800 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

Core i3 3217U  vs
Celeron N2810 
Clock speed 1.8 GHz 2 GHz
Cores Dual core Dual core

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

integrated graphics

GPU GPU GPU
Label Intel® HD Graphics 4000 Intel® HD Graphics
Number of displays supported 3 2
GPU clock speed 350 MHz 313 MHz
Turbo clock speed 1,050 MHz 756 MHz

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1600
DDR3L-1600
DDR3-1333
DDR3L-1333
DDR3RS-1600
DDR3RS-1333
DDR3
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Maximum bandwidth 25,600 MB/s 12,800 MB/s

details

Core i3 3217U  vs
Celeron N2810 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 2
L2 cache 0.5 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 22 nm
Max CPUs 1 1

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 1.8 GHz 2 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 1.8 GHz 2 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 1.8 GHz 2 GHz

power consumption

TDP 17W 7.5W
Annual home energy cost 4.1 $/year 1.81 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 14.89 $/year 6.57 $/year
Performance per watt 6.98 pt/W 6.65 pt/W
Typical power consumption 13.81W 6.09W

bus

Architecture DMI 2.0 FSB
Number of links 1 1
Intel Core i3 3217U
Report a correction
Intel Celeron N2810
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus