Atom N280 vs Celeron M 360

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron M 360
1 core / 1 thread, 21 Watt
0.14
+40%
Atom N280
2009
1 core / 2 threads, 2 Watt
0.10

Celeron M 360 outperforms Atom N280 by a considerable 40% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron M 360 and Atom N280 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking33193368
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesCeleron MIntel Atom
Power efficiency0.633.79
Architecture codenameDothan (2004−2005)DiamondVille (2008−2009)
Release dateno data (2024 years ago)1 February 2009 (15 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Celeron M 360 and Atom N280 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 cores1 (Single-Core)1 (Single-Core)
Threads12
Base clock speed1.4 GHz1.66 GHz
Boost clock speed1.4 GHz0.07 GHz
Bus typeno dataFSB
Bus rate400 MHz666.66 MT/s
Multiplierno data10
L1 cacheno data56 KB
L2 cacheno data512 KB
L3 cache1 MB L2 KB0 KB
Chip lithography90 nm45 nm
Die sizeno data25.9638 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °C90 °C
Number of transistorsno data47 Million
64 bit support--
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage range1.26V, 1.004V-1.292V0.9V-1.1625V

Compatibility

Information on Celeron M 360 and Atom N280 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 configurationno data1 (Uniprocessor)
SocketPPGA478, H-PBGA479PBGA437
Power consumption (TDP)21 Watt2.5 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 360 and Atom N280. 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 Switching--
PAE32 Bitno data
FSB parity-no data

Security technologies

Celeron M 360 and Atom N280 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT--
EDB++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M 360 and Atom N280 are enumerated here.

VT-dno data-
VT-x--

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 360 and Atom N280. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Maximum memory sizeno data8 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.


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.

Celeron M 360 0.14
+40%
Atom N280 0.10

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 M 360 221
+40.8%
Atom N280 157

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

Celeron M 360 131
Atom N280 115
+13.9%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.14 0.10
Threads 1 2
Chip lithography 90 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 21 Watt 2 Watt

Celeron M 360 has a 40% higher aggregate performance score.

Atom N280, on the other hand, has 100% more threads, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 950% lower power consumption.

The Celeron M 360 is our recommended choice as it beats the Atom N280 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 360 and Atom N280, 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 M 360
Celeron M 360
Intel Atom N280
Atom N280

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.


2.8 12 votes

Rate Celeron M 360 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 30 votes

Rate Atom N280 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron M 360 or Atom N280, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.