Celeron 2.8 GHz vs Atom N2850
Primary details
Comparing Atom N2850 and Celeron 2.8 GHz processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Atom | no data |
| Architecture codename | Cedarview-M (2011−2012) | Northwood (2002−2004) |
| Release date | 5 January 2012 (12 years ago) | no data (2024 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Atom N2850 and Celeron 2.8 GHz 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) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Boost clock speed | 2 GHz | 2.8 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 400 MHz |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 130 nm |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Atom N2850 and Celeron 2.8 GHz 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.
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6,6 Watt | 52.8 Watt |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 3650 | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 2 | 1 |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6 Watt | 52 Watt |
Atom N2850 has 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads, a 306.3% more advanced lithography process, and 766.7% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Atom N2850 and Celeron 2.8 GHz. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Atom N2850 and Celeron 2.8 GHz, 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.
