Atom N2800 vs Celeron U3400

VS

Primary details

Comparing Celeron U3400 and Atom N2800 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the rankingnot ratednot rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel CeleronIntel Atom
Architecture codenameWestmere (2010−2011)Cedarview-M (2011−2012)
Release date24 May 2010 (14 years ago)1 December 2011 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$47

Detailed specifications

Celeron U3400 and Atom N2800 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 speed1.06 GHz1.86 GHz
Boost clock speed0.07 GHz1.87 GHz
Bus typeDMI 1.0no data
Bus rate1 × 2.5 GT/sno data
Multiplier8no data
L1 cache128 KB64 KB (per core)
L2 cache512 KB512K (per core)
L3 cache2 MB0 KB
Chip lithography32 nm32 nm
Die size81 mm266 mm2
Maximum core temperature105 °Cno data
Number of transistors382 Million176 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron U3400 and Atom N2800 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
SocketBGA1288FCBGA559
Power consumption (TDP)18 Watt6.5 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron U3400 and Atom N2800. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE2, Intel® SSE3, Intel® SSSE3
FMA+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology--
Hyper-Threading Technology-+
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring++
Flex Memory Access+no data
Demand Based Switchingno data-
PAE36 Bitno data
FDI+no data
Fast Memory Access+no data

Security technologies

Celeron U3400 and Atom N2800 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT--
EDB++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron U3400 and Atom N2800 are enumerated here.

VT-d--
VT-x+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron U3400 and Atom N2800. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3-800DDR3
Maximum memory size8 GB4.88 GB
Max memory channels21
Maximum memory bandwidth12.799 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel® HD Graphics for Previous Generation Intel® ProcessorsIntel Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 3650
Clear Video+no data
Graphics max frequency500 MHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron U3400 and Atom N2800 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported2no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron U3400 and Atom N2800.

PCIe version2.0no data
PCI Express lanes16no 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.



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 U3400 516
+16.2%
Atom N2800 444

Pros & cons summary


Recency 24 May 2010 1 December 2011
Threads 2 4
Power consumption (TDP) 18 Watt 6 Watt

Atom N2800 has an age advantage of 1 year, 100% more threads, and 200% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Celeron U3400 and Atom N2800. We've got no test results to judge.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron U3400 and Atom N2800, 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 U3400
Celeron U3400
Intel Atom N2800
Atom N2800

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.


2.4 30 votes

Rate Celeron U3400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.7 103 votes

Rate Atom N2800 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron U3400 or Atom N2800, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.