Celeron N3450 vs Atom C3538
Aggregate performance score
Celeron N3450 outperforms Atom C3538 by a small 5% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Atom C3538 and Celeron N3450 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2260 | 2214 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.04 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Atom | Intel Celeron |
| Architecture codename | Goldmont (2016−2017) | Apollo Lake (2016) |
| Release date | 15 August 2017 (6 years ago) | 30 August 2016 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $75 | $107 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Atom C3538 and Celeron N3450 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 4 |
| Boost clock speed | 2.1 GHz | 1.1 GHz |
| L1 cache | 224 KB | no data |
| L2 cache | 8 MB | 2 MB |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 87 °C | 105 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Atom C3538 and Celeron N3450 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 | 1 (Uniprocessor) | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | no data | FCBGA1296 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 6 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Atom C3538 and Celeron N3450. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
Security technologies
Atom C3538 and Celeron N3450 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Atom C3538 and Celeron N3450 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Atom C3538 and Celeron N3450. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3L-1600 | DDR3, DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | 256 GB | 8 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 29.871 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel HD Graphics 500 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Atom C3538 and Celeron N3450.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 12 | 6 |
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.
Celeron N3450 outperforms Atom C3538 by 5% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Celeron N3450 outperforms Atom C3538 by 5% in Passmark.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
Benchmark coverage: 41%
Atom C3538 outperforms Celeron N3450 by 6% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Benchmark coverage: 41%
Atom C3538 outperforms Celeron N3450 by 35% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.22 | 1.28 |
| Recency | 15 August 2017 | 30 August 2016 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 6 Watt |
Atom C3538 has an age advantage of 11 months.
Celeron N3450, on the other hand, has a 4.9% higher aggregate performance score, and 150% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Atom C3538 and Celeron N3450.
Be aware that Atom C3538 is a server/workstation processor while Celeron N3450 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Atom C3538 and Celeron N3450, 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.
