Celeron N4100 vs 2957U

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron 2957U
2014
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
0.56

Celeron N4100 outperforms Celeron 2957U by a whopping 188% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron 2957U and Celeron N4100 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking28352114
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel CeleronIntel Celeron
Power efficiency3.4024.47
Architecture codenameHaswell (2013−2015)Goldmont Plus (2017)
Release date1 January 2014 (10 years ago)11 December 2017 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$107$107

Detailed specifications

Celeron 2957U and Celeron N4100 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 speed1.4 GHz1.1 GHz
Boost clock speed1.4 GHz2.4 GHz
Bus rate5 GT/sno data
Multiplierno data11
L1 cache128 KB256 KB
L2 cache512 KB4 MB
L3 cache2 MB4 MB
Chip lithography22 nm14 nm
Maximum core temperature100 °C105 deg C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on Celeron 2957U and Celeron N4100 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)
SocketFCBGA1168FCBGA1090
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt6 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 2957U and Celeron N4100. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2Intel® SSE4.2
AES-NI-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Speed Shiftno data-
Turbo Boost Technology--
Hyper-Threading Technology--
Idle States++
Thermal Monitoring++
Smart Response--
GPIO++
Smart Connect+no data
Turbo Boost Max 3.0no data-
FDI-no data
AMT9.5no data
Matrix Storage-no data
HD Audio+no data
RST+no data

Security technologies

Celeron 2957U and Celeron N4100 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-no data
EDB++
Secure Key++
MPX-+
Identity Protection-+
SGXno dataYes with Intel® ME
OS Guard-+
Anti-Theft--

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 2957U and Celeron N4100 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 2957U and Celeron N4100. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4
Maximum memory size16 GB8 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidth25.6 GB/s38.397 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel® HD Graphics for 4th Generation Intel® ProcessorsIntel UHD Graphics 600
Max video memoryno data8 GB
Quick Sync Video++
Clear Video+no data
Graphics max frequency1 GHz700 MHz
Execution Unitsno data12

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron 2957U and Celeron N4100 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported33
eDP++
DisplayPort++
HDMI++
MIPI-DSIno data+

Graphics image quality

Maximum display resolutions supported by Celeron 2957U and Celeron N4100 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.

4K resolution supportno data+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Celeron 2957U and Celeron N4100 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno data12
OpenGLno data4.4

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 2957U and Celeron N4100.

PCIe version2.02.0
PCI Express lanes106
PCI support-no data
USB revision3.02.0/3.0
Total number of SATA ports22
Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports22
Integrated IDE-no data
Number of USB ports48
Integrated LAN--
UART++

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 2957U 0.56
Celeron N4100 1.61
+188%

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 2957U 855
Celeron N4100 2457
+187%

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 2957U 2077
+3.2%
Celeron N4100 2013

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 2957U 4043
Celeron N4100 5904
+46%

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 2957U 53.5
Celeron N4100 19.41
+176%

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 2957U 1
Celeron N4100 2
+81.7%

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

Celeron 2957U 105
Celeron N4100 198
+88.6%

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made 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 (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.

Celeron 2957U 55
Celeron N4100 69
+24.7%

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 2957U 0.62
Celeron N4100 0.83
+33.9%

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 2957U 0.1
Celeron N4100 1.7
+1208%

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 2957U 8
Celeron N4100 12
+55.9%

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 2957U 41
Celeron N4100 58
+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 2957U 1058
Celeron N4100 1139
+7.7%

Geekbench 3 32-bit multi-core

Celeron 2957U 2208
Celeron N4100 5042
+128%

Geekbench 3 32-bit single-core

Celeron 2957U 1283
Celeron N4100 1629
+27%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.56 1.61
Recency 1 January 2014 11 December 2017
Physical cores 2 4
Threads 2 4
Chip lithography 22 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 6 Watt

Celeron N4100 has a 187.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 57.1% more advanced lithography process, and 150% lower power consumption.

The Celeron N4100 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 2957U in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 2957U and Celeron N4100, 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 2957U
Celeron 2957U
Intel Celeron N4100
Celeron N4100

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.


2.5 70 votes

Rate Celeron 2957U on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 430 votes

Rate Celeron N4100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron 2957U or Celeron N4100, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.