E2-3800 vs Celeron M 900

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron M 900
2009
1 core / 1 thread, 35 Watt
0.08
E2-3800
2013
4 cores / 4 threads, 15 Watt
0.73
+813%

E2-3800 outperforms Celeron M 900 by a whopping 813% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron M 900 and E2-3800 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking34022694
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel Celeron MAMD A-Series
Power efficiency0.224.61
Architecture codenamePenryn (2008−2011)Kabini (2013−2014)
Release date1 April 2009 (15 years ago)23 May 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$70no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron M 900 and E2-3800 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)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads14
Boost clock speed2.2 GHz1.3 GHz
Bus rate800 MHzno data
L1 cacheno data128 KB
L2 cache1 MB2048 KB
Chip lithography45 nm28 nm
Die size107 mm2107 mm2
Maximum core temperature105 °C90 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data90 °C
Number of transistors410 Millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron M 900 and E2-3800 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
SocketPGA478FT3
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 900 and E2-3800. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno data86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX
AES-NI-+
FMA-FMA4
AVX-+
PowerNow-+
PowerGating-+
VirusProtect-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M 900 and E2-3800 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
IOMMU 2.0-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 900 and E2-3800. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR3-1600
Max memory channelsno data1

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon HD 8280
จำนวนพาธไลน์no data128
Enduro-+
Switchable graphics-+
UVD-+
VCE-+

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron M 900 and E2-3800 integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Celeron M 900 and E2-3800 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno dataDirectX® 12
Vulkan-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron M 900 and E2-3800.

PCIe versionno data2.0
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.


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 900 0.08
E2-3800 0.73
+813%

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 900 123
E2-3800 1152
+837%

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 900 2101
E2-3800 2295
+9.2%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.08 0.73
Recency 1 April 2009 23 May 2013
Physical cores 1 4
Threads 1 4
Chip lithography 45 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 15 Watt

E2-3800 has a 812.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, a 60.7% more advanced lithography process, and 133.3% lower power consumption.

The E2-3800 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M 900 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 900 and E2-3800, 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 900
Celeron M 900
AMD E2-3800
E2-3800

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 21 vote

Rate Celeron M 900 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 104 votes

Rate E2-3800 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron M 900 or E2-3800, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.