Celeron 560 vs Atom N2800
Aggregate performance score
Atom N2800 outperforms Celeron 560 by a substantial 33% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Atom N2800 and Celeron 560 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3130 | 3208 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Atom | no data |
| Power efficiency | 3.77 | 0.64 |
| Architecture codename | Cedarview-M (2011−2012) | no data |
| Release date | 1 December 2011 (13 years ago) | 1 January 2008 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $47 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Atom N2800 and Celeron 560 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) | no data |
| Threads | 4 | no data |
| Base clock speed | 1.86 GHz | 2.13 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.87 GHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | no data |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 1 MB L2 Cache |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 65 nm |
| Die size | 66 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 176 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 0.95V-1.3V |
Compatibility
Information on Atom N2800 and Celeron 560 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 | no data |
| Socket | FCBGA559 | PPGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6.5 Watt | 31 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Atom N2800 and Celeron 560. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE2, Intel® SSE3, Intel® SSSE3 | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | - |
| Idle States | no data | - |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Demand Based Switching | - | - |
| FSB parity | no data | - |
Security technologies
Atom N2800 and Celeron 560 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | - |
| EDB | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Atom N2800 and Celeron 560 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | - | no data |
| VT-x | - | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Atom N2800 and Celeron 560. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | no data |
| Maximum memory size | 4.88 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 1 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 3650 (640 MHz) | 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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.28 | 0.21 |
| Recency | 1 December 2011 | 1 January 2008 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6 Watt | 31 Watt |
Atom N2800 has a 33.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 103.1% more advanced lithography process, and 416.7% lower power consumption.
The Atom N2800 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 560 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Atom N2800 and Celeron 560, 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.
