Celeron N3350 vs 1007U
Aggregate performance score
N3350 outperforms 1007U by a substantial 33% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron 1007U and Celeron N3350 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2740 | 2593 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron | Intel Celeron |
| Architecture codename | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) | Apollo Lake (2016) |
| Release date | 20 January 2013 (11 years ago) | 1 September 2016 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $86 | $24 |
| Current price | $205 (2.4x MSRP) | $251 (10.5x MSRP) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron 1007U and Celeron N3350 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 | 1.5 GHz | 1.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.5 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 256K (per core) | 2 MB |
| L3 cache | 2 MB (shared) | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 118 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | 105 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 105 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron 1007U and Celeron N3350 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 | 1 |
| Socket | FCBGA1023 | FCBGA1296 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 17 Watt | 6 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 1007U and Celeron N3350. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 | no data |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| My WiFi | - | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | - |
| Idle States | + | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | + |
| Flex Memory Access | + | no data |
| SIPP | no data | - |
| Smart Response | no data | - |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| GPIO | no data | + |
| Smart Connect | no data | - |
| FDI | + | no data |
| Fast Memory Access | + | no data |
| Status | Discontinued | Launched |
| HD Audio | no data | + |
| RST | no data | - |
Security technologies
Celeron 1007U and Celeron N3350 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | + |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Boot | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| MPX | no data | + |
| Identity Protection | no data | + |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
| Anti-Theft | - | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 1007U and Celeron N3350 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | - | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| VT-i | no data | - |
| EPT | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 1007U and Celeron N3350. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3, DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | 32 GB | 8 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | - | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel® HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel® Processors | Intel HD Graphics 500 |
| Max video memory | no data | 8 GB |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Clear Video | - | + |
| Clear Video HD | - | + |
| Graphics max frequency | 1 GHz | 650 MHz |
| Execution Units | no data | 12 |
| InTru 3D | - | - |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron 1007U and Celeron N3350 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 3 | 3 |
| eDP | + | + |
| DisplayPort | + | + |
| HDMI | + | + |
| MIPI-DSI | no data | + |
| SDVO | + | no data |
| CRT | + | no data |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Celeron 1007U and Celeron N3350 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | + |
| OpenGL | no data | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 1007U and Celeron N3350.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | 6 |
| USB revision | no data | 2.0/3.0 |
| Total number of SATA ports | no data | 2 |
| Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports | no data | 2 |
| Number of USB ports | no data | 8 |
| Integrated LAN | no data | - |
| UART | 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.
N3350 outperforms 1007U by 33% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
N3350 outperforms 1007U by 33% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
N3350 outperforms 1007U by 1% in GeekBench 5 Single-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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
1007U outperforms N3350 by 2% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 19%
N3350 outperforms 1007U by 3% in 3DMark06 CPU.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
1007U outperforms N3350 by 9% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
1007U outperforms N3350 by 7% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.54 | 0.72 |
| Recency | 20 January 2013 | 1 September 2016 |
| Cost | $86 | $24 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 17 Watt | 6 Watt |
The Celeron N3350 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 1007U in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 1007U and Celeron N3350, 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.
