Celeron N2806 vs E1-6010

VS

Aggregate performance score

E1-6010
2014
2 cores / 2 threads, 10 Watt
0.34
+9.7%
Celeron N2806
2013
2 cores / 2 threads, 4 Watt
0.31

E1-6010 outperforms Celeron N2806 by a moderate 10% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing E1-6010 and Celeron N2806 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking30653092
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD E-SeriesIntel Celeron
Power efficiency3.227.33
Architecture codenameBeema (2014)Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)
Release date29 April 2014 (10 years ago)1 December 2013 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$107

Detailed specifications

E1-6010 and Celeron N2806 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)
Threads22
Base clock speedno data1.6 GHz
Boost clock speed1.35 GHz2 GHz
L1 cacheno data56K (per core)
L2 cache1024 KB512K (per core)
L3 cacheno data0 KB
Chip lithography28 nm22 nm
Die size107 mm2no data
Maximum core temperatureno data105 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)90 °Cno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on E1-6010 and Celeron N2806 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
SocketFT3bFCBGA1170
Power consumption (TDP)10 Watt4.5 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by E1-6010 and Celeron N2806. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensions86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVXno data
AES-NI+-
FMAFMA4-
AVX+-
PowerNow+-
PowerGating+-
VirusProtect+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Smart Connectno data+
RSTno data-

Security technologies

E1-6010 and Celeron N2806 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDBno data+
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by E1-6010 and Celeron N2806 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data-
VT-xno data+
IOMMU 2.0+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by E1-6010 and Celeron N2806. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data4 GB
Max memory channels11

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon R2 GraphicsIntel HD Graphics for Intel Atom Processor Z3700 Series
Enduro+-
Switchable graphics+-
UVD+-
VCE+-
Graphics max frequencyno data756 MHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of E1-6010 and Celeron N2806 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data2
DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-

Graphics API support

APIs supported by E1-6010 and Celeron N2806 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 12no data
Vulkan+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by E1-6010 and Celeron N2806.

PCIe version2.02.0
PCI Express lanes84
USB revisionno data3.0 and 2.0
Total number of SATA portsno data2
Number of USB portsno data5

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.

E1-6010 0.34
+9.7%
Celeron N2806 0.31

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.

E1-6010 534
+9.2%
Celeron N2806 489

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.

E1-6010 927
Celeron N2806 1195
+28.9%

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.

E1-6010 1
Celeron N2806 1
+8.5%

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

E1-6010 49
Celeron N2806 58
+18.4%

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made 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 (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.

E1-6010 25
Celeron N2806 26
+4%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.34 0.31
Recency 29 April 2014 1 December 2013
Chip lithography 28 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 10 Watt 4 Watt

E1-6010 has a 9.7% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 4 months.

Celeron N2806, on the other hand, has a 27.3% more advanced lithography process, and 150% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between E1-6010 and Celeron N2806.


Should you still have questions on choice between E1-6010 and Celeron N2806, 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.


AMD E1-6010
E1-6010
Intel Celeron N2806
Celeron N2806

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.


2.3 562 votes

Rate E1-6010 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 28 votes

Rate Celeron N2806 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about E1-6010 or Celeron N2806, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.