Celeron N2840 vs Apple M1 Pro
Aggregate performance score
Apple M1 Pro outperforms Celeron N2840 by a whopping 2827% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing M1 Pro and Celeron N2840 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 721 | 3041 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Apple M-Series | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | no data | 5.00 |
| Architecture codename | no data | Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) |
| Release date | 18 October 2021 (3 years ago) | 22 May 2014 (10 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
M1 Pro and Celeron N2840 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 10 (Deca-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 10 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2.064 GHz | 2.16 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.22 GHz | 2.58 GHz |
| L1 cache | 2.9 MB | 56K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 28 MB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 24 MB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 22 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 33700 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
Compatibility
Information on M1 Pro and Celeron N2840 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | no data | 1 |
| Socket | no data | FCBGA1170 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 7.5 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by M1 Pro and Celeron N2840. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Smart Connect | no data | + |
Security technologies
M1 Pro and Celeron N2840 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| Anti-Theft | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by M1 Pro and Celeron N2840 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by M1 Pro and Celeron N2840. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 8 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 21.32 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Apple M1 Pro 16-Core GPU | Intel HD Graphics for Intel Atom Processor Z3700 Series |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 792 MHz |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of M1 Pro and Celeron N2840 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 2 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by M1 Pro and Celeron N2840.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 4 |
| USB revision | no data | 3.0 and 2.0 |
| Total number of SATA ports | no data | 2 |
| Number of USB ports | no data | 5 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.83 | 0.37 |
| Recency | 18 October 2021 | 22 May 2014 |
| Physical cores | 10 | 2 |
| Threads | 10 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 22 nm |
Apple M1 Pro has a 2827% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, 400% more physical cores and 400% more threads, and a 340% more advanced lithography process.
The M1 Pro is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N2840 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Apple M1 Pro and Celeron N2840, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
