Atom N2800 vs Celeron D 340
Primary details
Comparing Celeron D 340 and Atom N2800 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 3118 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Atom |
| Power efficiency | no data | 3.79 |
| Architecture codename | Prescott (2001−2005) | Cedarview-M (2011−2012) |
| Release date | September 2004 (20 years ago) | 1 December 2011 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $47 |
Detailed specifications
Celeron D 340 and Atom N2800 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 | 1 (Single-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 1 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2.93 GHz | 1.86 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.93 GHz | 1.87 GHz |
| L1 cache | 16 KB | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256 KB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 109 mm2 | 66 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 67 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 125 million | 176 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 1.25V-1.4V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron D 340 and Atom N2800 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 | 1 |
| Socket | PPGA478 | FCBGA559 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 73 Watt | 6.5 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron D 340 and Atom N2800. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE2, Intel® SSE3, Intel® SSSE3 |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | - | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | + |
| Idle States | - | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Demand Based Switching | - | - |
| PAE | 32 Bit | no data |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
Security technologies
Celeron D 340 and Atom N2800 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | - |
| EDB | - | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron D 340 and Atom N2800 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | - | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron D 340 and Atom N2800. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4.88 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 1 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 3650 (640 MHz) |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 1 | 2 |
| Threads | 1 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 73 Watt | 6 Watt |
Atom N2800 has 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads, a 181.3% more advanced lithography process, and 1116.7% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Celeron D 340 and Atom N2800. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Celeron D 340 is a desktop processor while Atom N2800 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron D 340 and Atom N2800, 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.
