Celeron 1000M vs N2940

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron N2940
2014
4 cores / 4 threads, 7 Watt
0.66
Celeron 1000M
2013
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.67
+1.5%

Celeron 1000M outperforms Celeron N2940 by a minimal 2% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron N2940 and Celeron 1000M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking27572746
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel CeleronIntel Celeron
Power efficiency8.921.81
Architecture codenameBay Trail-M (2013−2014)Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
Release date22 May 2014 (10 years ago)20 January 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$86

Detailed specifications

Celeron N2940 and Celeron 1000M 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 speed2.25 GHz1.8 GHz
Bus rateno data5 GT/s
L1 cache56K (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache512K (per core)256K (per core)
L3 cache0 KB2 MB (shared)
Chip lithography22 nm22 nm
Die sizeno data118 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °C105 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data105 °C
Number of transistorsno data1,400 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron N2940 and Celeron 1000M 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
SocketFCBGA1170G2 (988B)
Power consumption (TDP)7.5 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N2940 and Celeron 1000M. 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
Thermal Monitoring-+
Smart Connect+no data

Security technologies

Celeron N2940 and Celeron 1000M technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

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

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron N2940 and Celeron 1000M are enumerated here.

VT-d-no data
VT-x++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron N2940 and Celeron 1000M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory size8 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth21.32 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
Intel HD Graphics for Intel Atom Processor Z3700 SeriesIntel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) (650 - 1000 MHz)
Quick Sync Video+-
Graphics max frequency854 MHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron N2940 and Celeron 1000M integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported2no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron N2940 and Celeron 1000M.

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 N2940 0.66
Celeron 1000M 0.67
+1.5%

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 N2940 1045
Celeron 1000M 1069
+2.3%

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Celeron N2940 166
Celeron 1000M 296
+78.3%

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Celeron N2940 497
Celeron 1000M 509
+2.4%

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 N2940 1150
Celeron 1000M 2480
+116%

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 N2940 3958
Celeron 1000M 4757
+20.2%

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 N2940 2191
+13.9%
Celeron 1000M 1923

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

Celeron N2940 29.2
+42.6%
Celeron 1000M 41.63

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 N2940 2
+9.6%
Celeron 1000M 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 N2940 0.42
Celeron 1000M 0.74
+76.2%

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

Celeron N2940 0.2
+50%
Celeron 1000M 0.2

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

Celeron N2940 9
+10.2%
Celeron 1000M 8

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

Celeron N2940 47
Celeron 1000M 47
+0.7%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.66 0.67
Integrated graphics card 0.77 0.63
Recency 22 May 2014 20 January 2013
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Power consumption (TDP) 7 Watt 35 Watt

Celeron N2940 has 22.2% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 1 year, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and 400% lower power consumption.

Celeron 1000M, on the other hand, has a 1.5% higher aggregate performance score.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Celeron N2940 and Celeron 1000M.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron N2940 and Celeron 1000M, 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 N2940
Celeron N2940
Intel Celeron 1000M
Celeron 1000M

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.


2.6 106 votes

Rate Celeron N2940 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 166 votes

Rate Celeron 1000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron N2940 or Celeron 1000M, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.