Atom x5-E8000 vs Celeron 2950M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron 2950M
2013
2 cores / 2 threads, 37 Watt
0.78
+27.9%
Atom x5-E8000
2016
4 cores / 4 threads, 5 Watt
0.61

Celeron 2950M outperforms Atom x5-E8000 by a significant 28% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron 2950M and Atom x5-E8000 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking26412804
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel Celeron5x Intel Atom
Power efficiency1.9911.54
Architecture codenameHaswell (2013−2015)Cherry Trail (2015−2016)
Release date1 September 2013 (11 years ago)8 February 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$75$39

Detailed specifications

Celeron 2950M and Atom x5-E8000 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 speed2 GHzno data
Boost clock speed2 GHz1.04 GHz
Bus rate5 GT/sno data
Multiplierno data10
L1 cache64K (per core)no data
L2 cache256K (per core)2 MB
L3 cache2 MB (shared)0 KB
Chip lithography22 nm14 nm
Die size118 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature100 °C90 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)105 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,400 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron 2950M and Atom x5-E8000 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)
SocketFCPGA946no data
Power consumption (TDP)37 Watt5 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 2950M and Atom x5-E8000. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2no data
AES-NI-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Thermal Monitoring+-

Security technologies

Celeron 2950M and Atom x5-E8000 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

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

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 2950M and Atom x5-E8000 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 2950M and Atom x5-E8000. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
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 4th Generation Intel ProcessorsIntel HD Graphics (Cherry Trail) (320 MHz)
Graphics max frequency1.1 GHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron 2950M and Atom x5-E8000 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported3no data
eDP+no data
DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-
VGA+no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 2950M and Atom x5-E8000.

PCIe version2.02.0
PCI Express lanes164

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 2950M 0.78
+27.9%
Atom x5-E8000 0.61

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 2950M 1234
+28.3%
Atom x5-E8000 962

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.78 0.61
Recency 1 September 2013 8 February 2016
Physical cores 2 4
Threads 2 4
Chip lithography 22 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 37 Watt 5 Watt

Celeron 2950M has a 27.9% higher aggregate performance score.

Atom x5-E8000, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 57.1% more advanced lithography process, and 640% lower power consumption.

The Celeron 2950M is our recommended choice as it beats the Atom x5-E8000 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 2950M and Atom x5-E8000, 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 2950M
Celeron 2950M
Intel Atom x5-E8000
Atom x5-E8000

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.


2.7 13 votes

Rate Celeron 2950M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.6 58 votes

Rate Atom x5-E8000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron 2950M or Atom x5-E8000, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.