Atom D2560 vs Celeron E3400

VS

Primary details

Comparing Celeron E3400 and Atom D2560 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2832not 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)24 October 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$76no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron E3400 and Atom D2560 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)
Threads24
Base clock speed2.6 GHz2 GHz
Boost clock speed2.6 GHz2 GHz
L1 cache64 KB (per core)no data
L2 cache1 MB (shared)1 MB
L3 cache0 KB1 MB
Chip lithography45 nm32 nm
Die size82 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature74 °C100 °C
Number of transistors228 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage range0.85V-1.3625V0.91V -1.21V

Compatibility

Information on Celeron E3400 and Atom D2560 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 configuration1no data
SocketLGA775FCBGA559
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt10 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron E3400 and Atom D2560. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

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

Security technologies

Celeron E3400 and Atom D2560 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-no data
EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron E3400 and Atom D2560 are enumerated here.

VT-d--
VT-x+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron E3400 and Atom D2560. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1, DDR2, DDR3DDR3-800, DDR3-1066
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 Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 3650

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron E3400 and Atom D2560 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data2

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron E3400 and Atom D2560.

PCIe version2.0no data
PCI Express lanesno data4

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
+101%
Atom D2560 433

Pros & cons summary


Recency 17 January 2010 24 October 2012
Threads 2 4
Chip lithography 45 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 10 Watt

Atom D2560 has an age advantage of 2 years, 100% more threads, a 40.6% more advanced lithography process, and 550% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Celeron E3400 and Atom D2560. We've got no test results to judge.

Note that Celeron E3400 is a desktop processor while Atom D2560 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron E3400 and Atom D2560, 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 D2560
Atom D2560

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

No user ratings yet.

Rate Atom D2560 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 D2560, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.