Atom E3826 vs Celeron N2930

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron N2930
2014
4 cores / 4 threads, 7 Watt
0.64
+237%
Atom E3826
2013
2 cores / 2 threads, 7 Watt
0.19

Celeron N2930 outperforms Atom E3826 by a whopping 237% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron N2930 and Atom E3826 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking27583233
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel CeleronAtom
Power efficiency8.652.57
Architecture codenameBay Trail-M (2013−2014)Bay Trail-I (2013)
Release date23 February 2014 (10 years ago)8 October 2013 (11 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Celeron N2930 and Atom E3826 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speed1.83 GHzno data
Boost clock speed2.16 GHz1.47 GHz
L1 cache56K (per core)64 KB (per core)
L2 cache512K (per core)512 KB (per core)
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography22 nm22 nm
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron N2930 and Atom E3826 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
SocketFCBGA1170Intel BGA1170
Power consumption (TDP)7.5 Watt7 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N2930 and Atom E3826. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

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

Security technologies

Celeron N2930 and Atom E3826 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 N2930 and Atom E3826 are enumerated here.

VT-d-no data
VT-x+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron N2930 and Atom E3826. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory size8 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel HD Graphics for Intel Atom Processor Z3700 SeriesIntel HD Graphics
Quick Sync Video+-
Graphics max frequency854 MHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron N2930 and Atom E3826 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported2no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron N2930 and Atom E3826.

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 N2930 0.64
+237%
Atom E3826 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 N2930 1014
+234%
Atom E3826 304

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.64 0.19
Recency 23 February 2014 8 October 2013
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2

Celeron N2930 has a 236.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 months, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

The Celeron N2930 is our recommended choice as it beats the Atom E3826 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron N2930 and Atom E3826, 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 N2930
Celeron N2930
Intel Atom E3826
Atom E3826

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.


3.1 56 votes

Rate Celeron N2930 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate Atom E3826 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron N2930 or Atom E3826, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.