Atom Z2760 vs Celeron N2840

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron N2840
2014
2 cores / 2 threads, 7 Watt
0.37
+94.7%
Atom Z2760
2012
2 cores / 4 threads, 3 Watt
0.19

Celeron N2840 outperforms Atom Z2760 by an impressive 95% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron N2840 and Atom Z2760 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking30273237
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel Celeronno data
Power efficiency5.005.99
Architecture codenameBay Trail-M (2013−2014)Cloverview (2012)
Release date22 May 2014 (10 years ago)27 September 2012 (12 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Celeron N2840 and Atom Z2760 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 cores2 (Dual-core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads24
Base clock speed2.16 GHz1.8 GHz
Boost clock speed2.58 GHz1.8 GHz
L1 cache56K (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache512K (per core)512K (per core)
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography22 nm32 nm
Die sizeno data65 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data140 million
64 bit support+-
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron N2840 and Atom Z2760 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 configuration11
SocketFCBGA1170FC-MB4760
Power consumption (TDP)7.5 Watt3 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N2840 and Atom Z2760. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-+
Idle States+no data
Smart Connect+no data

Security technologies

Celeron N2840 and Atom Z2760 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDB+no data
Secure Key+no data
Anti-Theft-no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron N2840 and Atom Z2760 are enumerated here.

VT-d-no data
VT-x+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron N2840 and Atom Z2760. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR2
Maximum memory size8 GB2.4 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidth21.32 GB/s6.4 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel HD Graphics for Intel Atom Processor Z3700 SeriesPowerVR SGX545 (533 MHz)
Quick Sync Video+-
Graphics max frequency792 MHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron N2840 and Atom Z2760 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported2no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron N2840 and Atom Z2760.

PCIe version2.0no data
PCI Express lanes4no data
USB revision3.0 and 2.0no data
Total number of SATA ports2no data
Number of USB ports5no data

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 N2840 0.37
+94.7%
Atom Z2760 0.19

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 N2840 587
+97%
Atom Z2760 298

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 N2840 1331
+121%
Atom Z2760 602

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 N2840 2533
+49.3%
Atom Z2760 1697

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

Celeron N2840 1510
+59.8%
Atom Z2760 945

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

Celeron N2840 1
+67.9%
Atom Z2760 1

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

Celeron N2840 0.44
+144%
Atom Z2760 0.18

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.37 0.19
Recency 22 May 2014 27 September 2012
Threads 2 4
Chip lithography 22 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 7 Watt 3 Watt

Celeron N2840 has a 94.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 45.5% more advanced lithography process.

Atom Z2760, on the other hand, has 100% more threads, and 133.3% lower power consumption.

The Celeron N2840 is our recommended choice as it beats the Atom Z2760 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron N2840 and Atom Z2760, 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 N2840
Celeron N2840
Intel Atom Z2760
Atom Z2760

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.


2.6 651 vote

Rate Celeron N2840 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.5 15 votes

Rate Atom Z2760 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron N2840 or Atom Z2760, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.