0 Comments
| Intel N3160 vs Celeron N3150 |
VS
Released January, 2015
Intel Celeron N3150
- 1.6 GHz
- Quad core
Reasons to buy the Celeron N3150
![]() | Better performance per watt 10.68 pt/W |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
Newer | Jan, 2016 | vs | Jan, 2015 | Release date a year later | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||
Better performance per watt | 10.68 pt/W | vs | 9.3 pt/W | Around 15% better performance per watt |
Benchmarks Real world tests of N3160 vs Celeron N3150
GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
N3160
2,964
Celeron N3150
2,712
GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
N3160
898
Celeron N3150
835
GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
N3160
364.4 MB/s
Celeron N3150
335.9 MB/s
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
N3160
1,707
Celeron N3150
1,674
PassMark (Single Core)
N3160
497
Celeron N3150
470
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | N3160 | vs | Celeron N3150 |
---|---|---|---|
Clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 1.6 GHz | |
Turbo clock speed | 2.24 GHz | 2.08 GHz | |
Cores | Quad core | Quad core | |
features | |||
Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
Supports trusted computing | No | No | |
Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
Instruction set extensions | |||
AES | |||
Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
power consumption | |||
TDP | 6W | 6W | |
Annual home energy cost | 1.45 $/year | 1.45 $/year | |
Annual commercial energy cost | 5.26 $/year | 5.26 $/year | |
Performance per watt | 9.3 pt/W | 10.68 pt/W | |
Typical power consumption | 4.88W | 4.88W | |
bus | |||
Architecture | FSB | FSB | |
Number of links | 1 | 1 |
details | N3160 | vs | Celeron N3150 |
---|---|---|---|
Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
Threads | 4 | 4 | |
L2 cache | 2 MB | 2 MB | |
L2 cache per core | 0.5 MB/core | 0.5 MB/core | |
Manufacture process | 14 nm | 14 nm | |
Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
overclocking | |||
Overclocked clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 1.75 GHz | |
Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 1.6 GHz | 1.6 GHz | |
Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 1.6 GHz | 1.75 GHz | |
integrated graphics | |||
GPU | GPU | GPU | |
Label | Intel® HD Graphics 400 | Intel® HD Graphics | |
Number of displays supported | 3 | 3 | |
GPU clock speed | 320 MHz | 320 MHz | |
memory controller | |||
Memory controller | Built-in | Built-in | |
Memory type | |||
DDR3L-1600 | |||
Channels | Dual Channel | Dual Channel | |
Supports ECC | No | No | |
Maximum bandwidth | 25,600 MB/s | 25,600 MB/s | |
Maximum memory size | 8,192 MB | 8,192 MB |
Intel N3160 ![]() | Intel Celeron N3150 ![]() |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$107 | $82 | |
N3150 vs J1900 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$107 | $161 | |
N3150 vs N3700 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$107 | $107 | |
N3150 vs N3050 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$107 | ||
N3150 vs J3455 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$107 | ||
N3150 vs J3160 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$107 | $315 | |
N3150 vs 5250U | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$82 | ||
N3160 vs J1900 | ||
Popular Comparisons
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$305 | $300 | |
W3520 vs 2500 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$272 | $350 | |
4790K vs 6700K | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$281 | ||
4200U vs 6410 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$281 | ||
6200U vs 7th Gen A9-9410 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$275 | $161 | |
4005U vs N3540 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$134 | $225 | |
847 vs 3217U | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$180 | ||
3470 vs 5200 | ||
Read more
Comments
Showing 2 comments.
Tóth Ádám (09:53 AM, December 23, 2017)
Abigail (02:55 PM, August 3, 2017)