Atom 330 vs Celeron 1000M

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron 1000M
2013
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.67
+191%
Atom 330
2008
2 cores / 4 threads, 8 Watt
0.23

Celeron 1000M outperforms Atom 330 by a whopping 191% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron 1000M and Atom 330 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking27313175
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel CeleronIntel Atom
Power efficiency1.812.72
Architecture codenameIvy Bridge (2012−2013)Diamondville (2008−2009)
Release date20 January 2013 (11 years ago)2 April 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$86$43

Detailed specifications

Celeron 1000M and Atom 330 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 cores2 (Dual-core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads24
Base clock speed1.8 GHz1.6 GHz
Boost clock speed1.8 GHz0.1 GHz
Bus typeno dataFSB
Bus rate5 GT/s533.33 MT/s
Multiplierno data12
L1 cache64K (per core)112 KB
L2 cache256K (per core)1 MB
L3 cache2 MB (shared)0 KB
Chip lithography22 nm45 nm
Die size118 mm251.9276 mm2
Maximum core temperature105 °C85 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)105 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,400 million94 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage rangeno data0.9V-1.1625V

Compatibility

Information on Celeron 1000M and Atom 330 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 configuration11 (Uniprocessor)
SocketFCPGA988PBGA437
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt8 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 1000M and Atom 330. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2Intel® SSE2, Intel® SSE3, Intel® SSSE3
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+-
My WiFi-no data
Turbo Boost Technology--
Hyper-Threading Technology-+
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access+no data
Demand Based Switching--
FDI+no data
Fast Memory Access+no data
FSB parityno data-

Security technologies

Celeron 1000M and Atom 330 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT--
EDB++
Anti-Theft-no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 1000M and Atom 330 are enumerated here.

VT-d--
VT-x+-
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 1000M and Atom 330. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3no data
Maximum memory size32 GB8 GB
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth25.6 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel Processors-
Clear Video--
Clear Video HD--
Graphics max frequency1 GHz-
InTru 3D--

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron 1000M and Atom 330 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported3-
eDP+-
DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-
SDVO+-
CRT+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 1000M and Atom 330.

PCIe version2.0no data
PCI Express lanes16no 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.

Celeron 1000M 0.67
+191%
Atom 330 0.23

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.

Celeron 1000M 1069
+194%
Atom 330 363

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

Celeron 1000M 2480
+358%
Atom 330 542

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.

Celeron 1000M 4757
+211%
Atom 330 1530

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

Celeron 1000M 1923
+133%
Atom 330 825

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

Celeron 1000M 41.63
+180%
Atom 330 116.45

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.67 0.23
Recency 20 January 2013 2 April 2008
Threads 2 4
Chip lithography 22 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 8 Watt

Celeron 1000M has a 191.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 104.5% more advanced lithography process.

Atom 330, on the other hand, has 100% more threads, and 337.5% lower power consumption.

The Celeron 1000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Atom 330 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 1000M and Atom 330, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Celeron 1000M
Celeron 1000M
Intel Atom 330
Atom 330

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


2.8 166 votes

Rate Celeron 1000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 64 votes

Rate Atom 330 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron 1000M or Atom 330, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.