Atom N280 vs x7-E3950

VS

Primary details

Comparing Atom x7-E3950 and Atom N280 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2356not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Series7x Intel AtomIntel Atom
Power efficiency9.23no data
Architecture codenameApollo Lake (2014−2016)DiamondVille (2008−2009)
Release date30 August 2014 (10 years ago)1 February 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$57no data

Detailed specifications

Atom x7-E3950 and Atom N280 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)1 (Single-Core)
Threads42
Base clock speed1.6 GHz1.66 GHz
Boost clock speed2 GHz0.07 GHz
Bus typeno dataFSB
Bus rateno data666.66 MT/s
Multiplierno data10
L1 cache56K (per core)56 KB
L2 cache2 MB (shared)512 KB
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography14 nm45 nm
Die sizeno data25.9638 mm2
Maximum core temperature110 °C90 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)103 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data47 Million
64 bit support+-
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage rangeno data0.9V-1.1625V

Compatibility

Information on Atom x7-E3950 and Atom N280 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1 (Uniprocessor)
SocketIntel BGA 1296PBGA437
Power consumption (TDP)12 Watt2.5 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Atom x7-E3950 and Atom N280. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE2, Intel® SSE3, Intel® SSSE3
AES-NI+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Demand Based Switchingno data-

Security technologies

Atom x7-E3950 and Atom N280 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+-
EDBno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Atom x7-E3950 and Atom N280 are enumerated here.

VT-d+-
VT-x+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Atom x7-E3950 and Atom N280. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3, DDR4no data
Maximum memory size8 GB8 GB

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel HD Graphics 505-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Atom x7-E3950 and Atom N280.

PCIe version2.0no data
PCI Express lanes4no 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 x7-E3950 1864
+1087%
Atom N280 157

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 x7-E3950 1304
+130%
Atom N280 567

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.

Atom x7-E3950 3769
+330%
Atom N280 877

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 x7-E3950 2152
+324%
Atom N280 507

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

Atom x7-E3950 30.26
+280%
Atom N280 115

Pros & cons summary


Recency 30 August 2014 1 February 2009
Physical cores 4 1
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 14 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 12 Watt 2 Watt

Atom x7-E3950 has an age advantage of 5 years, 300% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 221.4% more advanced lithography process.

Atom N280, on the other hand, has 500% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Atom x7-E3950 and Atom N280. We've got no test results to judge.


Should you still have questions on choice between Atom x7-E3950 and Atom N280, 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 x7-E3950
Atom x7-E3950
Intel Atom N280
Atom N280

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.


2.6 48 votes

Rate Atom x7-E3950 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 30 votes

Rate Atom N280 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Atom x7-E3950 or Atom N280, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.