Celeron N2830 vs Athlon II Neo K325
Primary details
Comparing Athlon II Neo K325 and Celeron N2830 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | AMD Athlon II Neo | Intel Celeron |
| Architecture codename | Geneva (2010) | Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) |
| Release date | 12 May 2010 (14 years ago) | 23 February 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $107 |
Detailed specifications
Athlon II Neo K325 and Celeron N2830 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.16 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.3 GHz | 2.41 GHz |
| Bus rate | 2000 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 256 KB | 56K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 22 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon II Neo K325 and Celeron N2830 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 | S1 | FCBGA1170 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 7.5 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon II Neo K325 and Celeron N2830. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | SSE4A, AMD64, Enhanced Virus Protection, Virtualization, PowerNow, HyperTransport 3.0 | no data |
| PowerNow | + | - |
| VirusProtect | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Smart Connect | no data | + |
| RST | no data | - |
Security technologies
Athlon II Neo K325 and Celeron N2830 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| Anti-Theft | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon II Neo K325 and Celeron N2830 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon II Neo K325 and Celeron N2830. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| 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® HD Graphics for Intel Atom® Processor Z3700 Series |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 750 MHz |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Athlon II Neo K325 and Celeron N2830 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 2 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon II Neo K325 and Celeron N2830.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 4 |
| USB revision | no data | 3.0 and 2.0 |
| Total number of SATA ports | no data | 2 |
| Number of USB ports | no data | 5 |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 12 May 2010 | 23 February 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 7 Watt |
Celeron N2830 has an age advantage of 3 years, a 104.5% more advanced lithography process, and 71.4% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Athlon II Neo K325 and Celeron N2830. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon II Neo K325 and Celeron N2830, 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.
