Celeron M 530 vs Atom x7-E3950

Primary details

Comparing Atom x7-E3950 and Celeron M 530 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2351not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Series7x Intel AtomCeleron M
Power efficiency9.27no data
Architecture codenameApollo Lake (2014−2016)Merom (2006−2008)
Release date26 October 2016 (8 years ago)no data (2024 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$57no data

Detailed specifications

Atom x7-E3950 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)1 (Single-Core)
Threads41
Base clock speed1.6 GHz1.73 GHz
Boost clock speed1.6 GHz1.73 GHz
Bus rateno data533 MHz
L1 cache56K (per core)no data
L2 cache2 MB (shared)no data
L3 cache0 KB1 MB L2 Cache
Chip lithography14 nm65 nm
Maximum core temperature110 °C100 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)103 °Cno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage rangeno data0.95V-1.3V

Compatibility

Information on Atom x7-E3950 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)no data
SocketIntel BGA 1296PBGA479,PPGA478
Power consumption (TDP)12 Watt30 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Atom x7-E3950 and Celeron M 530. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+-
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data-
Demand Based Switchingno data-
FSB parityno data-

Security technologies

Atom x7-E3950 and Celeron M 530 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 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 x7-E3950 and Celeron M 530. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3, DDR4no data
Maximum memory size8 GBno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel HD Graphics 505no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Atom x7-E3950 and Celeron M 530.

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
+517%
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 x7-E3950 1304
Celeron M 530 1615
+23.8%

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
+191%
Celeron M 530 739

Pros & cons summary


Physical cores 4 1
Threads 4 1
Chip lithography 14 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 12 Watt 30 Watt

Atom x7-E3950 has 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, a 364.3% more advanced lithography process, and 150% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Atom x7-E3950 and Celeron M 530. We've got no test results to judge.


Should you still have questions on choice between Atom x7-E3950 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 x7-E3950
Atom x7-E3950
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.


2.6 48 votes

Rate Atom x7-E3950 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 x7-E3950 or Celeron M 530, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.