Celeron N2840 vs Dual-Core T3000
Aggregate performance score
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 outperforms Celeron N2840 by a moderate 16% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Celeron N2840 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2966 | 3040 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron Dual-Core | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 1.16 | 5.00 |
| Architecture codename | Penryn-1M (2009) | Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) |
| Release date | 1 May 2009 (15 years ago) | 22 May 2014 (10 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Celeron N2840 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) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.16 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.8 GHz | 2.58 GHz |
| Bus rate | 800 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 64 KB | 56K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | 107 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 410 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Celeron N2840 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 | no data | 1 |
| Socket | P (478) | FCBGA1170 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 7.5 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Celeron N2840. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Smart Connect | no data | + |
Security technologies
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Celeron N2840 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| Anti-Theft | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Celeron N2840 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Celeron N2840. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 8 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 21.32 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel HD Graphics for Intel Atom Processor Z3700 Series |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 792 MHz |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Celeron N2840 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 2 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Celeron N2840.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 4 |
| USB revision | no data | 3.0 and 2.0 |
| Total number of SATA ports | no data | 2 |
| Number of USB ports | no data | 5 |
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.43 | 0.37 |
| Recency | 1 May 2009 | 22 May 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 7 Watt |
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 has a 16.2% higher aggregate performance score.
Celeron N2840, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 104.5% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.
The Celeron Dual-Core T3000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N2840 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Celeron N2840, 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.
