Celeron N2940 vs E2-3800

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

E2-3800
2013
4 cores / 4 threads, 15 Watt
0.75
+10.3%

E2-3800 outperforms Celeron N2940 by a moderate 10% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing E2-3800 and Celeron N2940 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking26702734
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD A-SeriesIntel Celeron
Power efficiency4.568.86
Architecture codenameKabini (2013−2014)Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)
Release date23 May 2013 (11 years ago)22 May 2014 (10 years ago)

Detailed specifications

E2-3800 and Celeron N2940 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)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads44
Base clock speedno data1.83 GHz
Boost clock speed1.3 GHz2.25 GHz
L1 cache128 KB56K (per core)
L2 cache2048 KB512K (per core)
L3 cacheno data0 KB
Chip lithography28 nm22 nm
Die size107 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature90 °C100 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)90 °Cno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on E2-3800 and Celeron N2940 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
SocketFT3FCBGA1170
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt7.5 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by E2-3800 and Celeron N2940. 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+

Security technologies

E2-3800 and Celeron N2940 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDBno data+
Secure Keyno data+
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by E2-3800 and Celeron N2940 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 E2-3800 and Celeron N2940. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3-1600DDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data8 GB
Max memory channels12
Maximum memory bandwidthno data21.32 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon HD 8280Intel® HD Graphics for Intel Atom® Processor Z3700 Series
Number of pipelines128no data
Quick Sync Video-+
Enduro+-
Switchable graphics+-
UVD+-
VCE+-
Graphics max frequencyno data854 MHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of E2-3800 and Celeron N2940 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data2
DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-

Graphics API support

APIs supported by E2-3800 and Celeron N2940 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 12no data
Vulkan+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by E2-3800 and Celeron N2940.

PCIe version2.02.0
PCI Express lanes44
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.

E2-3800 0.75
+10.3%
Celeron N2940 0.68

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
+10.3%
Celeron N2940 1044

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.

E2-3800 136
Celeron N2940 167
+22.8%

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.

E2-3800 389
Celeron N2940 500
+28.5%

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
+99.6%
Celeron N2940 1150

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

E2-3800 3575
Celeron N2940 3958
+10.7%

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
Celeron N2940 29.2
+46%

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.

E2-3800 1
Celeron N2940 2
+25%

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

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

E2-3800 103
Celeron N2940 111
+7.3%

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.

E2-3800 28
Celeron N2940 36
+26.8%

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark 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 loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

E2-3800 0.32
Celeron N2940 0.42
+31.3%

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

E2-3800 0.8
+229%
Celeron N2940 0.2

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

E2-3800 8
Celeron N2940 9
+24.8%

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

E2-3800 36
Celeron N2940 47
+31.1%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.75 0.68
Recency 23 May 2013 22 May 2014
Chip lithography 28 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 7 Watt

E2-3800 has a 10.3% higher aggregate performance score.

Celeron N2940, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 11 months, a 27.3% more advanced lithography process, and 114.3% lower power consumption.

The E2-3800 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N2940 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between E2-3800 and Celeron N2940, 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 N2940
Celeron N2940

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
2.7 99 votes

Rate Celeron N2940 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 N2940, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.