Celeron 1017U vs N3160

Aggregate performance score

Celeron N3160
2016
4 cores / 4 threads, 6 Watt
0.75
Celeron 1017U
2013
2 cores / 2 threads, 17 Watt
0.95
+26.7%

Celeron 1017U outperforms Celeron N3160 by a significant 27% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron N3160 and Celeron 1017U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking26542500
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel CeleronIntel Celeron
Power efficiency17.745.29
Architecture codenameBraswell (2015−2016)Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
Release date15 January 2016 (8 years ago)1 July 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$107no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron N3160 and Celeron 1017U 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 speed1.6 GHz1.6 GHz
Boost clock speed2.24 GHz1.6 GHz
Bus typeIDIno data
Bus rateno data5 GT/s
L1 cacheno data128 KB
L2 cache2 MB512 KB
L3 cache0 KB2 MB
Chip lithography14 nm22 nm
Die sizeno data94 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °C105 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron N3160 and Celeron 1017U 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1
SocketFCBGA1170FCBGA1023
Power consumption (TDP)6 Watt17 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N3160 and Celeron 1017U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2
AES-NI+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
My WiFino data-
Turbo Boost Technology--
Hyper-Threading Technology--
Idle States++
Thermal Monitoring++
Flex Memory Accessno data+
Smart Response-no data
Demand Based Switchingno data-
GPIO+no data
Smart Connect-no data
FDIno data+
Fast Memory Accessno data+
HD Audio+no data
RST-no data

Security technologies

Celeron N3160 and Celeron 1017U technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT--
EDB++
Secure Boot+no data
Secure Key+no data
Identity Protection+-
OS Guard-no data
Anti-Theft--

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron N3160 and Celeron 1017U are enumerated here.

VT-d--
VT-x++
VT-i-no data
EPT++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron N3160 and Celeron 1017U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory size8 GB32 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidthno data25.6 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel HD Graphics (Braswell)Intel® HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel® Processors
Max video memory8 GBno data
Quick Sync Video+-
Clear Video+-
Clear Video HD+-
Graphics max frequency640 MHz1 GHz
Execution Units12no data
InTru 3D--

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron N3160 and Celeron 1017U integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported33
eDP++
DisplayPort++
HDMI++
SDVOno data+
CRTno data+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Celeron N3160 and Celeron 1017U integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectX+no data
OpenGL+no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron N3160 and Celeron 1017U.

PCIe version2.02.0
PCI Express lanes416
USB revision2.0/3.0no data
Total number of SATA ports2no data
Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports2no data
Number of USB ports5no data
Integrated LAN-no data
UART+no 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 N3160 0.75
Celeron 1017U 0.95
+26.7%

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 N3160 1187
Celeron 1017U 1508
+27%

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 N3160 170
Celeron 1017U 263
+54.7%

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 N3160 517
+13.9%
Celeron 1017U 454

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.75 0.95
Recency 15 January 2016 1 July 2013
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 14 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 6 Watt 17 Watt

Celeron N3160 has an age advantage of 2 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 57.1% more advanced lithography process, and 183.3% lower power consumption.

Celeron 1017U, on the other hand, has a 26.7% higher aggregate performance score.

The Celeron 1017U is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N3160 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron N3160 and Celeron 1017U, 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 N3160
Celeron N3160
Intel Celeron 1017U
Celeron 1017U

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.


4.6 195 votes

Rate Celeron N3160 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 70 votes

Rate Celeron 1017U on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron N3160 or Celeron 1017U, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.