Atom N270 vs Celeron B815
Primary details
Comparing Celeron B815 and Atom N270 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron | Intel Atom |
| Architecture codename | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) | DiamondVille (2008−2009) |
| Release date | 1 January 2012 (12 years ago) | 2 April 2008 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $86 | $44 |
Detailed specifications
Celeron B815 and Atom N270 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 cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 1.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 0.1 GHz |
| Bus type | DMI 2.0 | FSB |
| Bus rate | 4 × 5 GT/s | 533.33 MT/s |
| Multiplier | 16 | 12 |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 56 KB |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 2 MB (shared) | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 131 mm2 | 25.9638 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 90 °C |
| Number of transistors | 504 million | 47 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 0.9V-1.1625V |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron B815 and Atom N270 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 configuration | 1 (Uniprocessor) | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FCPGA988,PGA988 | PBGA437 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 2.5 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron B815 and Atom N270. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 | Intel® SSE, Intel® SSE2, Intel® SSE3, Intel® SSSE3 |
| FMA | + | - |
| 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 | - | - |
| FDI | + | no data |
| Fast Memory Access | + | no data |
| FSB parity | no data | - |
Security technologies
Celeron B815 and Atom N270 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 B815 and Atom N270 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | - | - |
| VT-x | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron B815 and Atom N270. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | no data |
| Maximum memory size | 16 GB | 8 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 21.335 GB/s | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel® HD Graphics for 2nd Generation Intel® Processors | - |
| Clear Video HD | - | - |
| Graphics max frequency | 1.05 GHz | - |
| InTru 3D | - | - |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron B815 and Atom N270 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 2 | - |
| eDP | + | - |
| DisplayPort | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
| SDVO | + | - |
| CRT | + | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron B815 and Atom N270.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | no 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 1 January 2012 | 2 April 2008 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 2 Watt |
Celeron B815 has an age advantage of 3 years, 100% more physical cores, and a 40.6% more advanced lithography process.
Atom N270, on the other hand, has 1650% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Celeron B815 and Atom N270. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron B815 and Atom N270, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
