Celeron N2920 vs 1000M

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron 1000M
2013
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.67
+11.7%
Celeron N2920
2013
4 cores / 4 threads, 7 Watt
0.60

Celeron 1000M outperforms Celeron N2920 by a moderate 12% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron 1000M and Celeron N2920 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking27292790
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel CeleronIntel Celeron
Power efficiency1.818.11
Architecture codenameIvy Bridge (2012−2013)Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)
Release date20 January 2013 (11 years ago)1 December 2013 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$86$107

Detailed specifications

Celeron 1000M and Celeron N2920 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)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads24
Base clock speed1.8 GHz1.86 GHz
Boost clock speed1.8 GHz2 GHz
Bus rate5 GT/sno data
L1 cache64K (per core)56K (per core)
L2 cache256K (per core)512K (per core)
L3 cache2 MB (shared)0 KB
Chip lithography22 nm22 nm
Die size118 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature105 °C105 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)105 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,400 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron 1000M and Celeron N2920 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
SocketFCPGA988FCBGA1170
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt7.5 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 1000M and Celeron N2920. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

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

Security technologies

Celeron 1000M and Celeron N2920 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

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

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 1000M and Celeron N2920 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 Celeron N2920. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory size32 GB8 GB
Max memory channels22
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® ProcessorsIntel® HD Graphics for Intel Atom® Processor Z3700 Series
Clear Video HD--
Graphics max frequency1 GHz844 MHz
InTru 3D--

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron 1000M and Celeron N2920 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported32
eDP+no data
DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-
SDVO+no data
CRT+no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 1000M and Celeron N2920.

PCIe version2.02.0
PCI Express lanes164
USB revisionno data3.0 and 2.0
Total number of SATA portsno data2
Number of USB portsno data5

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
+11.7%
Celeron N2920 0.60

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
+12.5%
Celeron N2920 950

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
+141%
Celeron N2920 1030

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
+34.8%
Celeron N2920 3530

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
+3.4%
Celeron N2920 1861

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
Celeron N2920 31.99
+30.1%

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

Celeron 1000M 1
+2.1%
Celeron N2920 1

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

Celeron 1000M 0.74
+94.7%
Celeron N2920 0.38

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

Celeron 1000M 0.2
Celeron N2920 0.2
+31.3%

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

Celeron 1000M 8
+1.6%
Celeron N2920 8

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

Celeron 1000M 47
+12.3%
Celeron N2920 42

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Celeron 1000M 1285
Celeron N2920 1728
+34.5%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.67 0.60
Recency 20 January 2013 1 December 2013
Physical cores 2 4
Threads 2 4
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 7 Watt

Celeron 1000M has a 11.7% higher aggregate performance score.

Celeron N2920, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 10 months, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and 400% lower power consumption.

The Celeron 1000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N2920 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 1000M and Celeron N2920, 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 Celeron N2920
Celeron N2920

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
2.5 32 votes

Rate Celeron N2920 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron 1000M or Celeron N2920, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.