Celeron 1000M vs Phenom II X3 N830

Aggregate performance score

Phenom II X3 N830
2010
3 cores / 3 threads, 35 Watt
0.71
+2.9%
Celeron 1000M
2013
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.69

Phenom II X3 N830 outperforms Celeron 1000M by a minimal 3% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Phenom II X3 N830 and Celeron 1000M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking27042729
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Series3x AMD Phenom IIIntel Celeron
Power efficiency1.881.83
Architecture codenameChamplain (2010−2011)Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
Release date12 May 2010 (14 years ago)20 January 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$86

Detailed specifications

Phenom II X3 N830 and Celeron 1000M 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 cores3 (Tri-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads32
Base clock speedno data1.8 GHz
Boost clock speed2.1 GHz1.8 GHz
Bus rate3600 MHz5 GT/s
L1 cacheno data64K (per core)
L2 cache1.5 MB256K (per core)
L3 cacheno data2 MB (shared)
Chip lithography45 nm22 nm
Die sizeno data118 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data105 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data105 °C
Number of transistorsno data1,400 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Phenom II X3 N830 and Celeron 1000M 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
SocketS1FCPGA988
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Phenom II X3 N830 and Celeron 1000M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensions86x MMX(+), 3DNow!(+), SSE(1,2,3,4A),-64, AMD-VIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2
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

Phenom II X3 N830 and Celeron 1000M 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 Phenom II X3 N830 and Celeron 1000M 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 Phenom II X3 N830 and Celeron 1000M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data32 GB
Max memory channelsno data2
Maximum memory bandwidthno data25.6 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataIntel® HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel® Processors
Graphics max frequencyno data1 GHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Phenom II X3 N830 and Celeron 1000M integrated GPUs.

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

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Phenom II X3 N830 and Celeron 1000M.

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.

Phenom II X3 N830 0.71
+2.9%
Celeron 1000M 0.69

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.

Phenom II X3 N830 1107
+3.6%
Celeron 1000M 1069

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.

Phenom II X3 N830 269
Celeron 1000M 296
+10%

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.

Phenom II X3 N830 744
+46.2%
Celeron 1000M 509

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.

Phenom II X3 N830 1817
Celeron 1000M 2480
+36.5%

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.

Phenom II X3 N830 4954
+4.1%
Celeron 1000M 4757

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.

Phenom II X3 N830 2412
+25.4%
Celeron 1000M 1923

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.

Phenom II X3 N830 24.7
+68.5%
Celeron 1000M 41.63

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.

Phenom II X3 N830 2
+21.9%
Celeron 1000M 1

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.71 0.69
Recency 12 May 2010 20 January 2013
Physical cores 3 2
Threads 3 2
Chip lithography 45 nm 22 nm

Phenom II X3 N830 has a 2.9% higher aggregate performance score, and 50% more physical cores and 50% more threads.

Celeron 1000M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, and a 104.5% more advanced lithography process.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Phenom II X3 N830 and Celeron 1000M.


Should you still have questions on choice between Phenom II X3 N830 and Celeron 1000M, 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 Phenom II X3 N830
Phenom II X3 N830
Intel Celeron 1000M
Celeron 1000M

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.


4.1 37 votes

Rate Phenom II X3 N830 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 166 votes

Rate Celeron 1000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Phenom II X3 N830 or Celeron 1000M, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.