Atom N450 vs Celeron U3400
Aggregate performance score
Celeron U3400 outperforms Atom N450 by a whopping 146% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron U3400 and Atom N450 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3092 | 3349 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron | Intel Atom |
| Power efficiency | 1.68 | 2.05 |
| Architecture codename | Westmere (2010−2011) | Pinetrail (2009−2011) |
| Release date | 24 May 2010 (14 years ago) | 21 December 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $64 |
Detailed specifications
Celeron U3400 and Atom N450 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 1.06 GHz | 1.66 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 0.07 GHz | 1.67 GHz |
| Bus type | DMI 1.0 | no data |
| Bus rate | 1 × 2.5 GT/s | 533 MHz |
| Multiplier | 8 | no data |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 56 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 2 MB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 81 mm2 | 66 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 382 Million | 123 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron U3400 and Atom N450 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 | 1 (Uniprocessor) | 1 |
| Socket | BGA1288 | FCBGA559 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 5.5 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron U3400 and Atom N450. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® 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 Switching | no data | - |
| PAE | 36 Bit | no data |
| FDI | + | no data |
| Fast Memory Access | + | no data |
Security technologies
Celeron U3400 and Atom N450 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 N450 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | - | - |
| VT-x | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron U3400 and Atom N450. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3-800 | DDR2 |
| Maximum memory size | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 1 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 12.799 GB/s | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel HD Graphics for Previous Generation Intel Processors | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
| Clear Video | + | no data |
| Graphics max frequency | 500 MHz | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron U3400 and Atom N450 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 2 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron U3400 and Atom N450.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | 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.
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.32 | 0.13 |
| Recency | 24 May 2010 | 21 December 2009 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 5 Watt |
Celeron U3400 has a 146.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 months, 100% more physical cores, and a 40.6% more advanced lithography process.
Atom N450, on the other hand, has 260% lower power consumption.
The Celeron U3400 is our recommended choice as it beats the Atom N450 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron U3400 and Atom N450, 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.
