Celeron B820 vs E2-9000

VS

Aggregate performance score

E2-9000
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 10 Watt
0.61
+22%
Celeron B820
2012
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.50

E2-9000 outperforms Celeron B820 by a significant 22% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing E2-9000 and Celeron B820 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking28022889
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesBristol RidgeIntel Celeron
Power efficiency5.771.35
Architecture codenameStoney Ridge (2016−2019)Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
Release date1 June 2016 (8 years ago)1 July 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$86

Detailed specifications

E2-9000 and Celeron B820 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 GHz1.7 GHz
Boost clock speed2.2 GHz1.7 GHz
Bus typeno dataDMI 2.0
Bus rateno data4 × 5 GT/s
Multiplierno data17
L1 cacheno data128 KB
L2 cache1 MB512 KB
L3 cacheno data2 MB (shared)
Chip lithography28 nm32 nm
Die size124.5 mm2131 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °C100 °C
Number of transistors1200 Million504 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on E2-9000 and Celeron B820 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 (Uniprocessor)
SocketBGAFCPGA988,PGA988
Power consumption (TDP)10 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by E2-9000 and Celeron B820. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsVirtualization,Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2
FMA-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
My WiFino data-
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Flex Memory Accessno data+
Demand Based Switchingno data-
FDIno data+
Fast Memory Accessno data+

Security technologies

E2-9000 and Celeron B820 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by E2-9000 and Celeron B820 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by E2-9000 and Celeron B820. 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 data21.335 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 2nd Generation Intel Processors
Graphics max frequencyno data1.05 GHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of E2-9000 and Celeron B820 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data2
eDPno data+
DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+
SDVOno data+
CRTno data+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by E2-9000 and Celeron B820.

PCIe versionno data2.0
PCI Express lanesno data16

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
+22%
Celeron B820 0.50

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
+20.6%
Celeron B820 802

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.61 0.50
Integrated graphics card 1.03 0.77
Recency 1 June 2016 1 July 2012
Chip lithography 28 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 10 Watt 35 Watt

E2-9000 has a 22% higher aggregate performance score, 33.8% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 3 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 250% lower power consumption.

The E2-9000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron B820 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between E2-9000 and Celeron B820, 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 B820
Celeron B820

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.


2.5 314 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 142 votes

Rate Celeron B820 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 B820, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.