Atom D2500 vs Celeron E3400

VS

Primary details

Comparing Celeron E3400 and Atom D2500 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2827not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.72no data
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Seriesno dataIntel Atom
Power efficiency0.80no data
Architecture codenameWolfdale (2008−2010)Cedarview (2011−2012)
Release date17 January 2010 (14 years ago)1 November 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$76no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron E3400 and Atom D2500 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)2 (Dual-core)
Threads22
Base clock speed2.6 GHz1.86 GHz
Boost clock speed2.6 GHz1.87 GHz
L1 cache64 KB (per core)64 KB (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (shared)512K (per core)
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography45 nm32 nm
Die size82 mm266 mm2
Maximum core temperature74 °C100 °C
Number of transistors228 million176 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage range0.85V-1.3625Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Celeron E3400 and Atom D2500 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
SocketLGA775FCBGA559
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt10 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron E3400 and Atom D2500. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE2, Intel® SSE3, Intel® SSSE3
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+-
Turbo Boost Technology--
Hyper-Threading Technology-+
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Demand Based Switchingno data-
PAEno data36 Bit
AMTno data-
HD Audiono data+

Security technologies

Celeron E3400 and Atom D2500 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-no data
EDB++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron E3400 and Atom D2500 are enumerated here.

VT-d--
VT-x+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron E3400 and Atom D2500. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1, DDR2, DDR3DDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data4 GB
Max memory channelsno data1
Maximum memory bandwidthno data6.4 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataIntel GMA

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron E3400 and Atom D2500 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data2

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron E3400 and Atom D2500.

PCIe version2.0no data
PCI Express lanesno data4
Total number of SATA portsno data2
Number of USB portsno data8

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.

Celeron E3400 869
+261%
Atom D2500 241

Pros & cons summary


Recency 17 January 2010 1 November 2011
Chip lithography 45 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 10 Watt

Atom D2500 has an age advantage of 1 year, a 40.6% more advanced lithography process, and 550% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Celeron E3400 and Atom D2500. We've got no test results to judge.

Note that Celeron E3400 is a desktop processor while Atom D2500 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron E3400 and Atom D2500, 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 E3400
Celeron E3400
Intel Atom D2500
Atom D2500

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.


3.2 268 votes

Rate Celeron E3400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 36 votes

Rate Atom D2500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron E3400 or Atom D2500, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.