Celeron 2.10 vs Apple M1 Pro
Aggregate performance score
M1 Pro outperforms Celeron 2.10 by a whopping 6864% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 919 | 3597 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Apple M-Series | no data |
| Power efficiency | no data | 0.21 |
| Designer | Apple | Intel |
| Architecture codename | no data | Northwood (2002−2004) |
| Release date | 18 October 2021 (4 years ago) | November 2002 (23 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
M1 Pro and Celeron 2.10 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 cores | 10 (Deca-Core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 10 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 2.064 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 3.22 GHz | 2.1 GHz |
| L1 cache | 2.9 MB | 8 KB |
| L2 cache | 28 MB | 128 KB |
| L3 cache | 24 MB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 130 nm |
| Die size | no data | 146 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 33700 Million | 55 million |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
Compatibility
Information on M1 Pro and Celeron 2.10 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 configuration | no data | 1 |
| Socket | no data | 478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 MB + 24 MB | 73 Watt |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by M1 Pro and Celeron 2.10. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR1, DDR2 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Apple M1 Pro 16-Core GPU | no data |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.75 | 0.14 |
| Physical cores | 10 | 1 |
| Threads | 10 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 Watt | 73 Watt |
Apple M1 Pro has a 6864.3% higher aggregate performance score, 900% more physical cores and 900% more threads, a 2500% more advanced lithography process, and 160.7% lower power consumption.
The Apple M1 Pro is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Celeron 2.10 in performance tests.
Be aware that Apple M1 Pro is a notebook processor while Celeron 2.10 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
