Atom E3845 vs Celeron B830

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron B830
2012
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.54
Atom E3845
2013
4 cores / 4 threads, 10 Watt
0.67
+24.1%

Atom E3845 outperforms Celeron B830 by a significant 24% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron B830 and Atom E3845 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking28522749
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel CeleronAtom
Power efficiency1.466.34
Architecture codenameSandy Bridge (2011−2013)Bay Trail-I (2013)
Release date1 September 2012 (12 years ago)8 October 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$86no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron B830 and Atom E3845 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 GHzno data
Boost clock speed1.8 GHz1.91 GHz
Bus typeDMI 2.0no data
Bus rate4 × 5 GT/sno data
Multiplier18no data
L1 cache64K (per core)64 KB (per core)
L2 cache256K (per core)512 KB (per core)
L3 cache2 MB (shared)0 KB
Chip lithography32 nm22 nm
Die size131 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
Number of transistors504 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron B830 and Atom E3845 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1
SocketFCPGA988,PGA988Intel BGA1170
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt10 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron B830 and Atom E3845. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

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

Security technologies

Celeron B830 and Atom E3845 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

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

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron B830 and Atom E3845 are enumerated here.

VT-d-no data
VT-x+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron B830 and Atom E3845. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory size16 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth21.335 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel HD Graphics for 2nd Generation Intel ProcessorsIntel HD Graphics
Graphics max frequency1.05 GHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron B830 and Atom E3845 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported2no data
eDP+no data
DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-
SDVO+no data
CRT+no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron B830 and Atom E3845.

PCIe version2.0no data
PCI Express lanes16no 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 B830 0.54
Atom E3845 0.67
+24.1%

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 B830 862
Atom E3845 1065
+23.5%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.54 0.67
Recency 1 September 2012 8 October 2013
Physical cores 2 4
Threads 2 4
Chip lithography 32 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 10 Watt

Atom E3845 has a 24.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 45.5% more advanced lithography process, and 250% lower power consumption.

The Atom E3845 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron B830 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron B830 and Atom E3845, 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 B830
Celeron B830
Intel Atom E3845
Atom E3845

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.


2.9 91 vote

Rate Celeron B830 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1.5 18 votes

Rate Atom E3845 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron B830 or Atom E3845, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.