Atom N270 vs Celeron M 353
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 353 and Atom N270 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Celeron M | Intel Atom |
| Architecture codename | Dothan (2004−2005) | DiamondVille (2008−2009) |
| Release date | no data (2024 years ago) | 2 April 2008 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $44 |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 353 and Atom N270 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) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 1.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 0.9 GHz | 0.1 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | FSB |
| Bus rate | 400 MHz | 533.33 MT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 12 |
| L1 cache | no data | 56 KB |
| L2 cache | no data | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | no data | 25.9638 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 90 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 47 Million |
| 64 bit support | - | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 0.9V-1.1625V |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 353 and Atom N270 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 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | no data | PBGA437 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 5 Watt | 2.5 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 353 and Atom N270. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE, Intel® SSE2, Intel® SSE3, Intel® SSSE3 |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| Idle States | no data | - |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
| FSB parity | no data | - |
Security technologies
Celeron M 353 and Atom N270 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 M 353 and Atom N270 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | no data | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 353 and Atom N270. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Maximum memory size | no data | 8 GB |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Threads | 1 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 5 Watt | 2 Watt |
Atom N270 has 100% more threads, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 150% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Celeron M 353 and Atom N270. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 353 and Atom N270, 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.
