Celeron Dual-Core T1400 vs Athlon II N330
Aggregate performance score
Celeron Dual-Core T1400 outperforms Athlon II N330 by a minimal 2% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Athlon II N330 and Celeron Dual-Core T1400 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2988 | 2974 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | AMD Athlon II | Intel Celeron Dual-Core |
| Power efficiency | 1.13 | 1.16 |
| Architecture codename | Champlain (2010−2011) | Merom-2M (2008) |
| Release date | 12 May 2010 (14 years ago) | 1 May 2008 (16 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Athlon II N330 and Celeron Dual-Core T1400 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 2 |
| Boost clock speed | 2.3 GHz | 1.73 GHz |
| Bus rate | 3200 MHz | 533 MHz |
| L1 cache | 256 KB | no data |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 512 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 65 nm |
| Die size | 117.5 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 234 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon II N330 and Celeron Dual-Core T1400 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.
| Socket | S1 | P |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon II N330 and Celeron Dual-Core T1400. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX, 3DNow!, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, AMD64, Enhanced Virus Protection, Virtualization | no data |
| VirusProtect | + | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon II N330 and Celeron Dual-Core T1400 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon II N330 and Celeron Dual-Core T1400. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | no data |
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.
Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.42 | 0.43 |
| Recency | 12 May 2010 | 1 May 2008 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 65 nm |
Athlon II N330 has an age advantage of 2 years, and a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron Dual-Core T1400, on the other hand, has a 2.4% higher aggregate performance score.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Athlon II N330 and Celeron Dual-Core T1400.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon II N330 and Celeron Dual-Core T1400, 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.
