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 N3350

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of Intel N3350

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel N3350

Reasons to consider the
Intel N3350

Report a correction
Much newer manufacturing process 14 nm vs 65 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
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
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for maximum performance when needed, while conserving power and minimizing heat production when not needed
Has virtualization support Yes vs No Somewhat common; Boosts performance of virtual machines
Much better performance per watt 10.98 pt/W vs 1.57 pt/W Around 7x better performance per watt
Significantly lower typical power consumption 4.88W vs 28.44W 5.8x lower typical power consumption
Newer Jul, 2016 vs Apr, 2007 Release date over 9 years later
Better PassMark (Single core) score 763 vs 544 More than 40% better PassMark (Single core) score
More cores 2 vs 1 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.31 GHz vs 2.02 GHz Around 15% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
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
Front view of Intel Celeron M 420

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron M 420

Report a correction
Higher clock speed 1.6 GHz vs 1.1 GHz More than 45% higher clock speed
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.38 GHz vs 1.1 GHz More than 3x better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of N3350 vs Celeron M 420

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

N3350
1,128

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

N3350  vs
Celeron M 420 
Clock speed 1.1 GHz 1.6 GHz
Cores Dual core Single core

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing No No
Has virtualization support Yes No
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
SSE3
SSE
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes No

power consumption

TDP 6W 35W
Annual home energy cost 1.45 $/year 8.43 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 5.26 $/year 30.66 $/year
Performance per watt 10.98 pt/W 1.57 pt/W
Typical power consumption 4.88W 28.44W

details

N3350  vs
Celeron M 420 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 2 1
L2 cache 2 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 1 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 14 nm 65 nm
Max CPUs 1 1

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 2.31 GHz 2.02 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 1.1 GHz 3.38 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.31 GHz 2.02 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU GPU None
Label Intel® HD Graphics 500 N/A
Number of displays supported 3 N/A
GPU clock speed 200 MHz N/A

bus

Architecture FSB FSB
Number of links 1 1
Intel N3350
Report a correction
Intel Celeron M 420
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus