Atom C3958 vs Celeron N2806
Primary details
Comparing Celeron N2806 and Atom C3958 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | not rated | 1633 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.54 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | Intel Celeron | Intel Atom |
| Architecture codename | Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) | Goldmont (2016−2017) |
| Release date | 1 December 2013 (10 years ago) | 15 August 2017 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $107 | $449 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron N2806 and Atom C3958 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 1.58 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 2 GHz | 2 GHz |
| L1 cache | 112 KB | 896 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 16 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 14 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | 83 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron N2806 and Atom C3958 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 | 1 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FCBGA1170 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 4.5 Watt | 31 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N2806 and Atom C3958. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
Security technologies
Celeron N2806 and Atom C3958 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron N2806 and Atom C3958 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron N2806 and Atom C3958. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3L-1600 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 256 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 38.397 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | no data | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel HD Graphics | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron N2806 and Atom C3958.
| PCI Express lanes | 4 | 16 |
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Atom C3958 outperforms Celeron N2806 by 775% in Passmark.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 1 December 2013 | 15 August 2017 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 16 |
| Threads | 2 | 16 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 4 Watt | 31 Watt |
Celeron N2806 has 675% lower power consumption.
Atom C3958, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, 700% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 57.1% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Celeron N2806 and Atom C3958. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Celeron N2806 is a notebook processor while Atom C3958 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron N2806 and Atom C3958, 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.
