Pentium P6200 vs Celeron 2955U
Aggregate performance score
Pentium P6200 outperforms Celeron 2955U by a minimal 4% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron 2955U and Pentium P6200 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2843 | 2827 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron | Intel Pentium |
| Power efficiency | 3.47 | 1.54 |
| Architecture codename | Haswell (2013−2015) | Arrandale (2010−2011) |
| Release date | 1 September 2013 (11 years ago) | 26 September 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $60 |
Detailed specifications
Celeron 2955U and Pentium P6200 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 | 1.4 GHz | 2.13 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.4 GHz | 0.13 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 1.0 |
| Bus rate | 5 GT/s | 1 × 2.5 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 16 |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256K (per core) | 256K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 2 MB (shared) | 3 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 118 mm2 | 81+114 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 90 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 105 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 384 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron 2955U and Pentium P6200 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 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FCBGA1168 | PGA988 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 2955U and Pentium P6200. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 | no data |
| FMA | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | - |
| Idle States | + | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | + |
| Smart Response | - | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
| PAE | no data | 36 Bit |
| GPIO | + | no data |
| Smart Connect | + | no data |
| FDI | - | + |
| Fast Memory Access | no data | + |
| AMT | 9.5 | no data |
| Matrix Storage | - | no data |
| HD Audio | + | no data |
| RST | + | no data |
Security technologies
Celeron 2955U and Pentium P6200 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | - |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Key | + | no data |
| OS Guard | - | no data |
| Anti-Theft | - | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 2955U and Pentium P6200 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | - | - |
| VT-x | + | - |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 2955U and Pentium P6200. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 16 GB | 8 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 17.051 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel HD Graphics for 4th Generation Intel Processors | Intel HD Graphics for Previous Generation Intel Processors |
| Clear Video | + | + |
| Graphics max frequency | 1 GHz | 667 MHz |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron 2955U and Pentium P6200 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 3 | 2 |
| eDP | + | no data |
| DisplayPort | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 2955U and Pentium P6200.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 10 | 16 |
| PCI support | - | no data |
| USB revision | 3.0 | no data |
| Total number of SATA ports | 2 | no data |
| Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports | 2 | no data |
| Integrated IDE | - | no data |
| Number of USB ports | 4 | no data |
| 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.55 | 0.57 |
| Recency | 1 September 2013 | 26 September 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 35 Watt |
Celeron 2955U has an age advantage of 2 years, a 45.5% more advanced lithography process, and 133.3% lower power consumption.
Pentium P6200, on the other hand, has a 3.6% higher aggregate performance score.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Celeron 2955U and Pentium P6200.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 2955U and Pentium P6200, 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.
