Celeron 2955U vs 1017U

Aggregate performance score

Celeron 1017U
2013
2 cores / 2 threads, 17 Watt
0.95
+72.7%
Celeron 2955U
2013
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
0.55

Celeron 1017U outperforms Celeron 2955U by an impressive 73% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron 1017U and Celeron 2955U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking24982828
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel CeleronIntel Celeron
Power efficiency5.273.46
Architecture codenameIvy Bridge (2012−2013)Haswell (2013−2015)
Release date1 July 2013 (11 years ago)1 September 2013 (11 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Celeron 1017U and Celeron 2955U 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)
Threads22
Base clock speed1.6 GHz1.4 GHz
Boost clock speed1.6 GHz1.4 GHz
Bus rate5 GT/s5 GT/s
L1 cache128 KB64K (per core)
L2 cache512 KB256K (per core)
L3 cache2 MB2 MB (shared)
Chip lithography22 nm22 nm
Die size94 mm2118 mm2
Maximum core temperature105 °C100 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data105 °C
Number of transistorsno data1,400 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron 1017U and Celeron 2955U 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
SocketFCBGA1023FCBGA1168
Power consumption (TDP)17 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 1017U and Celeron 2955U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
My WiFi-no data
Turbo Boost Technology--
Hyper-Threading Technology--
Idle States++
Thermal Monitoring++
Flex Memory Access+no data
Smart Responseno data-
Demand Based Switching-no data
GPIOno data+
Smart Connectno data+
FDI+-
Fast Memory Access+no data
AMTno data9.5
Matrix Storageno data-
HD Audiono data+
RSTno data+

Security technologies

Celeron 1017U and Celeron 2955U technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT--
EDB++
Secure Keyno data+
OS Guardno data-
Anti-Theft--

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 1017U and Celeron 2955U are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d--
VT-x++
EPT++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 1017U and Celeron 2955U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory size32 GB16 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidth25.6 GB/s25.6 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel® HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel® ProcessorsIntel® HD Graphics for 4th Generation Intel® Processors
Clear Video-+
Graphics max frequency1 GHz1 GHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron 1017U and Celeron 2955U integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported33
eDP++
DisplayPort++
HDMI++
SDVO+no data
CRT+no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 1017U and Celeron 2955U.

PCIe version2.02.0
PCI Express lanes1610
PCI supportno data-
USB revisionno data3.0
Total number of SATA portsno data2
Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Portsno data2
Integrated IDEno data-
Number of USB portsno data4
Integrated LANno data-
UARTno 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 1017U 0.95
+72.7%
Celeron 2955U 0.55

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 1017U 1508
+71.9%
Celeron 2955U 877

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.

Celeron 1017U 263
Celeron 2955U 266
+1.1%

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.

Celeron 1017U 454
Celeron 2955U 455
+0.2%

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 1017U 2201
+6.4%
Celeron 2955U 2069

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 1017U 4155
+3.9%
Celeron 2955U 4000

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 1017U 1719
+13.1%
Celeron 2955U 1520

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 1017U 46.38
+14.7%
Celeron 2955U 53.2

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 1017U 1
+14%
Celeron 2955U 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 1017U 0.61
Celeron 2955U 0.61

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 1017U 0.1
+7.7%
Celeron 2955U 0.1

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 1017U 8
+0.7%
Celeron 2955U 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 1017U 42
+2.9%
Celeron 2955U 41

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 1017U 1150
+9.1%
Celeron 2955U 1054

Geekbench 3 32-bit multi-core

Celeron 1017U 2308
+4%
Celeron 2955U 2220

Geekbench 3 32-bit single-core

Celeron 1017U 1367
+7%
Celeron 2955U 1277

Geekbench 2

Celeron 1017U 2892
+6.3%
Celeron 2955U 2720

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.95 0.55
Recency 1 July 2013 1 September 2013
Power consumption (TDP) 17 Watt 15 Watt

Celeron 1017U has a 72.7% higher aggregate performance score.

Celeron 2955U, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 months, and 13.3% lower power consumption.

The Celeron 1017U is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 2955U in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 1017U and Celeron 2955U, 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 1017U
Celeron 1017U
Intel Celeron 2955U
Celeron 2955U

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 70 votes

Rate Celeron 1017U on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.7 67 votes

Rate Celeron 2955U on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron 1017U or Celeron 2955U, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.