Celeron 2957U vs E2-9000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

E2-9000
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 10 Watt
0.61
+13%
Celeron 2957U
2014
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
0.54

E2-9000 outperforms Celeron 2957U by a moderate 13% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing E2-9000 and Celeron 2957U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking27862838
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesBristol RidgeIntel Celeron
Power efficiency5.773.41
Architecture codenameStoney Ridge (2016−2019)Haswell (2013−2015)
Release date1 June 2016 (8 years ago)1 January 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$107

Detailed specifications

E2-9000 and Celeron 2957U 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 speed1.8 GHz1.4 GHz
Boost clock speed2.2 GHz1.4 GHz
Bus rateno data5 GT/s
L1 cacheno data128 KB
L2 cache1 MB512 KB
L3 cacheno data2 MB
Chip lithography28 nm22 nm
Die size124.5 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature90 °C100 °C
Number of transistors1200 Millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on E2-9000 and Celeron 2957U 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 configurationno data1
SocketBGAFCBGA1168
Power consumption (TDP)10 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by E2-9000 and Celeron 2957U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsVirtualization,Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Smart Responseno data-
GPIOno data+
Smart Connectno data+
FDIno data-
AMTno data9.5
Matrix Storageno data-
HD Audiono data+
RSTno data+

Security technologies

E2-9000 and Celeron 2957U technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+
Secure Keyno data+
OS Guardno data-
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by E2-9000 and Celeron 2957U are enumerated here.

AMD-V++
VT-dno data-
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by E2-9000 and Celeron 2957U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data16 GB
Max memory channelsno data2
Maximum memory bandwidthno data25.6 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon R2 (Stoney Ridge) ( - 600 MHz)Intel HD Graphics for 4th Generation Intel Processors
Quick Sync Video-+
Clear Videono data+
Graphics max frequencyno data1 GHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of E2-9000 and Celeron 2957U integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data3
eDPno data+
DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by E2-9000 and Celeron 2957U.

PCIe versionno data2.0
PCI Express lanesno data10
PCI supportno data-
USB revisionno data3.0
Total number of SATA portsno data2
Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Portsno data2
Integrated IDEno data-
Number of USB portsno data4
Integrated LANno data-
UARTno 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.

E2-9000 0.61
+13%
Celeron 2957U 0.54

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.

E2-9000 967
+13.1%
Celeron 2957U 855

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.

E2-9000 1787
Celeron 2957U 2077
+16.2%

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.

E2-9000 2897
Celeron 2957U 4043
+39.6%

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.

E2-9000 36.23
+47.7%
Celeron 2957U 53.5

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.

E2-9000 1
Celeron 2957U 1
+18.8%

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

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

E2-9000 84
Celeron 2957U 105
+25%

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.

E2-9000 47
Celeron 2957U 55
+17%

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.

E2-9000 0.59
Celeron 2957U 0.62
+5.1%

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.

E2-9000 0.7
+446%
Celeron 2957U 0.1

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.  

E2-9000 6
Celeron 2957U 8
+20.2%

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.  

E2-9000 36
Celeron 2957U 41
+15.6%

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

E2-9000 744
Celeron 2957U 1058
+42.2%

Geekbench 3 32-bit multi-core

E2-9000 2323
+5.2%
Celeron 2957U 2208

Geekbench 3 32-bit single-core

E2-9000 1430
+11.5%
Celeron 2957U 1283

Geekbench 2

E2-9000 2894
+2.7%
Celeron 2957U 2819

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.61 0.54
Integrated graphics card 1.03 0.77
Recency 1 June 2016 1 January 2014
Chip lithography 28 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 10 Watt 15 Watt

E2-9000 has a 13% higher aggregate performance score, 33.8% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 2 years, and 50% lower power consumption.

Celeron 2957U, on the other hand, has a 27.3% more advanced lithography process.

The E2-9000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 2957U in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between E2-9000 and Celeron 2957U, 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 E2-9000
E2-9000
Intel Celeron 2957U
Celeron 2957U

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.


2.5 311 votes

Rate E2-9000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.5 70 votes

Rate Celeron 2957U on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about E2-9000 or Celeron 2957U, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.