Celeron M 723 vs E2-3800

VS

Aggregate performance score

E2-3800
2013
4 cores / 4 threads, 15 Watt
0.73
+329%
Celeron M 723
2008
1 core / 1 thread, 5 Watt
0.17

E2-3800 outperforms Celeron M 723 by a whopping 329% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing E2-3800 and Celeron M 723 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking26773267
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD A-SeriesIntel Celeron M
Power efficiency4.613.22
Architecture codenameKabini (2013−2014)Penryn (2008−2011)
Release date23 May 2013 (11 years ago)1 September 2008 (16 years ago)

Detailed specifications

E2-3800 and Celeron M 723 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)1 (Single-Core)
Threads41
Boost clock speed1.3 GHz1.2 GHz
Bus rateno data800 MHz
L1 cache128 KBno data
L2 cache2048 KB1 MB
Chip lithography28 nm45 nm
Die size107 mm2107 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °C100 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)90 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data410 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on E2-3800 and Celeron M 723 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 configuration1no data
SocketFT3BGA956
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt5 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by E2-3800 and Celeron M 723. 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+-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by E2-3800 and Celeron M 723 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
IOMMU 2.0+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by E2-3800 and Celeron M 723. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3-1600no data
Max memory channels1no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon HD 8280no data
Number of pipelines128no data
Enduro+-
Switchable graphics+-
UVD+-
VCE+-

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of E2-3800 and Celeron M 723 integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-

Graphics API support

APIs supported by E2-3800 and Celeron M 723 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 12no data
Vulkan+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by E2-3800 and Celeron M 723.

PCIe version2.0no data
PCI Express lanes4no 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.

E2-3800 0.73
+329%
Celeron M 723 0.17

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.

E2-3800 1152
+331%
Celeron M 723 267

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

E2-3800 2295
+94.5%
Celeron M 723 1180

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

E2-3800 42.64
+203%
Celeron M 723 129

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.73 0.17
Recency 23 May 2013 1 September 2008
Physical cores 4 1
Threads 4 1
Chip lithography 28 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 5 Watt

E2-3800 has a 329.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 60.7% more advanced lithography process.

Celeron M 723, on the other hand, has 200% lower power consumption.

The E2-3800 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M 723 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between E2-3800 and Celeron M 723, 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 E2-3800
E2-3800
Intel Celeron M 723
Celeron M 723

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.


3.2 104 votes

Rate E2-3800 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 14 votes

Rate Celeron M 723 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about E2-3800 or Celeron M 723, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.