Celeron 6305 vs Atom x5-E3940
Aggregate performance score
Celeron 6305 outperforms Atom x5-E3940 by a small 7% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Atom x5-E3940 and Celeron 6305 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2319 | 2270 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | 5x Intel Atom | Intel Tiger Lake |
| Power efficiency | 11.58 | 8.22 |
| Architecture codename | Apollo Lake (2014−2016) | Tiger Lake-U (2020) |
| Release date | 26 October 2016 (8 years ago) | 1 September 2020 (4 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Atom x5-E3940 and Celeron 6305 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 1.6 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 1.8 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 GT/s |
| L1 cache | 56K (per core) | 160 KB |
| L2 cache | 2 MB (shared) | 2.5 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 4 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 10 nm SuperFin |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 103 °C | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Atom x5-E3940 and Celeron 6305 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 (Uniprocessor) | 1 |
| Socket | Intel BGA 1296 | FCBGA1449 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 9.5 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Atom x5-E3940 and Celeron 6305. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| 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 | - | + |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
Atom x5-E3940 and Celeron 6305 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | - |
| SGX | no data | - |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Atom x5-E3940 and Celeron 6305 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Atom x5-E3940 and Celeron 6305. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3-1866 | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | 8 GB | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Intel HD Graphics 500 | Intel UHD Graphics for 11th Gen Intel Processors |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Clear Video HD | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1.25 GHz |
| Execution Units | no data | 48 |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Atom x5-E3940 and Celeron 6305 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 4 |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Atom x5-E3940 and Celeron 6305 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | no data | 4096x2304@60Hz |
| Max resolution over eDP | no data | 4096x2304@60Hz |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | no data | 7680x4320@60Hz |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Atom x5-E3940 and Celeron 6305 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 12.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Atom x5-E3940 and Celeron 6305.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 4 | 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.
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.
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
| Performance score | 1.23 | 1.31 |
| Integrated graphics card | 0.77 | 5.58 |
| Recency | 26 October 2016 | 1 September 2020 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 9 Watt | 15 Watt |
Atom x5-E3940 has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and 66.7% lower power consumption.
Celeron 6305, on the other hand, has a 6.5% higher aggregate performance score, 624.7% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 40% more advanced lithography process.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Atom x5-E3940 and Celeron 6305.
Should you still have questions on choice between Atom x5-E3940 and Celeron 6305, 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.
