Atom N550 vs Celeron T3300
Primary details
Comparing Celeron T3300 and Atom N550 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Atom |
| Architecture codename | no data | Pineview (2009−2011) |
| Release date | 1 January 2010 (14 years ago) | 23 August 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $86 |
Detailed specifications
Celeron T3300 and Atom N550 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 | no data | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | no data | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2 GHz | 1.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1.5 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 666 MHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 1 MB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | no data | 87 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 176 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron T3300 and Atom N550 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 | no data | 1 |
| Socket | PGA478 | FCBGA559 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 8.5 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron T3300 and Atom N550. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE2, Intel® SSE3, Intel® SSSE3 |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | - | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
Security technologies
Celeron T3300 and Atom N550 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | - |
| EDB | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron T3300 and Atom N550 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | - | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron T3300 and Atom N550. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 2 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 1 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel GMA 3150 |
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 1 January 2010 | 23 August 2010 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 8 Watt |
Atom N550 has an age advantage of 7 months, and 337.5% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Celeron T3300 and Atom N550. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron T3300 and Atom N550, 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.
