Celeron M 530 vs Atom N2800

VS

Primary details

Comparing Atom N2800 and Celeron M 530 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the rankingnot ratednot rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel AtomCeleron M
Architecture codenameCedarview-M (2011−2012)Merom (2006−2008)
Release date1 December 2011 (12 years ago)no data (2024 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$47no data

Detailed specifications

Atom N2800 and Celeron M 530 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)1 (Single-Core)
Threads41
Base clock speed1.86 GHz1.73 GHz
Boost clock speed1.87 GHz1.73 GHz
Bus rateno data533 MHz
L1 cache64 KB (per core)no data
L2 cache512K (per core)no data
L3 cache0 KB1 MB L2 Cache
Chip lithography32 nm65 nm
Die size66 mm2no data
Maximum core temperatureno data100 °C
Number of transistors176 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage rangeno data0.95V-1.3V

Compatibility

Information on Atom N2800 and Celeron M 530 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 configuration1no data
SocketFCBGA559PBGA479,PPGA478
Power consumption (TDP)6.5 Watt30 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Atom N2800 and Celeron M 530. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE2, Intel® SSE3, Intel® SSSE3no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+-
Turbo Boost Technology--
Hyper-Threading Technology+-
Idle Statesno data-
Thermal Monitoring+-
Demand Based Switching--
FSB parityno data-

Security technologies

Atom N2800 and Celeron M 530 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT--
EDB++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Atom N2800 and Celeron M 530 are enumerated here.

VT-d-no data
VT-x--

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Atom N2800 and Celeron M 530. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3no data
Maximum memory size4.88 GBno data
Max memory channels1no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 3650no 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.

Atom N2800 444
+47%
Celeron M 530 302

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.

Atom N2800 648
Celeron M 530 1615
+149%

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.

Atom N2800 965
+30.6%
Celeron M 530 739

Pros & cons summary


Physical cores 2 1
Threads 4 1
Chip lithography 32 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 6 Watt 30 Watt

Atom N2800 has 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads, a 103.1% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Atom N2800 and Celeron M 530. We've got no test results to judge.


Should you still have questions on choice between Atom N2800 and Celeron M 530, 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.


Intel Atom N2800
Atom N2800
Intel Celeron M 530
Celeron M 530

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.


2.7 104 votes

Rate Atom N2800 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 40 votes

Rate Celeron M 530 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Atom N2800 or Celeron M 530, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.