Atom N2800 vs Celeron M 560

VS

Primary details

Comparing Celeron M 560 and Atom N2800 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the rankingnot ratednot rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel Celeron MIntel Atom
Architecture codenameMerom (2006−2008)Cedarview-M (2011−2012)
Release date1 May 2008 (16 years ago)1 December 2011 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$47

Detailed specifications

Celeron M 560 and Atom N2800 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)2 (Dual-core)
Threads14
Base clock speedno data1.86 GHz
Boost clock speed2.13 GHz1.87 GHz
Bus rate533 MHzno data
L1 cache64 KB64 KB (per core)
L2 cache1 MB512K (per core)
L3 cacheno data0 KB
Chip lithography65 nm32 nm
Die size143 mm266 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
Number of transistors291 Million176 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron M 560 and Atom N2800 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
SocketPPGA478FCBGA559
Power consumption (TDP)30 Watt6.5 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 560 and Atom N2800. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE2, Intel® SSE3, Intel® SSSE3
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Demand Based Switchingno data-

Security technologies

Celeron M 560 and Atom N2800 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M 560 and Atom N2800 are enumerated here.

VT-dno data-
VT-xno data-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 560 and Atom N2800. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data4.88 GB
Max memory channelsno data1

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataIntel Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 3650

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 M 560 535
+20.5%
Atom N2800 444

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.

Celeron M 560 2008
+210%
Atom N2800 648

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.

Celeron M 560 2008
+9.8%
Atom N2800 1829

Pros & cons summary


Recency 1 May 2008 1 December 2011
Physical cores 1 2
Threads 1 4
Chip lithography 65 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 30 Watt 6 Watt

Atom N2800 has an age advantage of 3 years, 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads, a 103.1% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Celeron M 560 and Atom N2800. We've got no test results to judge.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 560 and Atom N2800, 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 560
Celeron M 560
Intel Atom N2800
Atom N2800

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.


2.7 43 votes

Rate Celeron M 560 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.7 104 votes

Rate Atom N2800 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron M 560 or Atom N2800, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.