Celeron N4020 vs Athlon 64 2800+
Primary details
Comparing Athlon 64 2800+ and Celeron N4020 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 2470 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 83 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Gemini Lake |
| Power efficiency | no data | 15.35 |
| Architecture codename | NewCastle (2004) | Gemini Lake Refresh (2019) |
| Release date | April 2004 (20 years ago) | 4 November 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $100 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Athlon 64 2800+ and Celeron N4020 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 | 1 (Single-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 1 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 1.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.8 GHz | 2.8 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 15 MHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | no data |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 4 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 4 MB |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 193 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | 69 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon 64 2800+ and Celeron N4020 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 | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | 754 | FCBGA1090 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 89 Watt | 6 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 64 2800+ and Celeron N4020. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Smart Response | no data | - |
| GPIO | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | - |
Security technologies
Athlon 64 2800+ and Celeron N4020 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| MPX | - | + |
| Identity Protection | - | + |
| SGX | no data | Yes with Intel® ME |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
| Anti-Theft | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon 64 2800+ and Celeron N4020 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon 64 2800+ and Celeron N4020. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 8 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel UHD Graphics 600 |
| Max video memory | no data | 8 GB |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 650 MHz |
| Execution Units | no data | 12 |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Athlon 64 2800+ and Celeron N4020 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
| eDP | no data | + |
| DisplayPort | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| MIPI-DSI | no data | + |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Athlon 64 2800+ and Celeron N4020 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| 4K resolution support | no data | + |
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | no data | 4096x2160@30Hz |
| Max resolution over eDP | no data | 4096x2160@60Hz |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | no data | 4096x2160@60Hz |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Athlon 64 2800+ and Celeron N4020 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 12 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.4 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon 64 2800+ and Celeron N4020.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 6 |
| USB revision | no data | 2.0/3.0 |
| Total number of SATA ports | no data | 2 |
| Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports | no data | 2 |
| Number of USB ports | no data | 8 |
| Integrated LAN | no data | - |
| UART | no 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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 1 | 2 |
| Threads | 1 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 89 Watt | 6 Watt |
Celeron N4020 has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 828.6% more advanced lithography process, and 1383.3% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Athlon 64 2800+ and Celeron N4020. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Athlon 64 2800+ is a desktop processor while Celeron N4020 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 64 2800+ and Celeron N4020, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
