Celeron N2806 vs E1-6010
Primary details
Comparing E1-6010 and Celeron N2806 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 | AMD E-Series | Intel Celeron |
| Architecture codename | Beema (2014) | Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) |
| Release date | 29 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 cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 1.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.35 GHz | 2 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 56K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1024 KB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | 107 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 90 °C | no 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 configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | FT3b | FCBGA1170 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 4.5 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 extensions | 86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX | no data |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| FMA | FMA4 | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| PowerNow | + | - |
| PowerGating | + | - |
| VirusProtect | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Smart Connect | no data | + |
| RST | no data | - |
Security technologies
E1-6010 and Celeron N2806 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | no data | + |
| Anti-Theft | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by E1-6010 and Celeron N2806 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | no 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 types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 GB |
| Max memory channels | 1 | 1 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon R2 Graphics | Intel® HD Graphics for Intel Atom® Processor Z3700 Series |
| Enduro | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 756 MHz |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of E1-6010 and Celeron N2806 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 2 |
| DisplayPort | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by E1-6010 and Celeron N2806 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | no data |
| Vulkan | + | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by E1-6010 and Celeron N2806.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 8 | 4 |
| USB revision | no data | 3.0 and 2.0 |
| Total number of SATA ports | no data | 2 |
| Number of USB ports | no data | 5 |
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.
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.
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.
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 29 April 2014 | 1 December 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 4 Watt |
E1-6010 has 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.
We couldn't decide between E1-6010 and Celeron N2806. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between E1-6010 and Celeron N2806, 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.
