Athlon XP 2800+ vs Celeron 2957U
Aggregate performance score
Celeron 2957U outperforms Athlon XP 2800+ by a whopping 238% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron 2957U and Athlon XP 2800+ processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2839 | 3274 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Celeron | no data |
| Power efficiency | 3.41 | 0.20 |
| Architecture codename | Haswell (2013−2015) | Barton (2001−2004) |
| Release date | 1 January 2014 (10 years ago) | January 2001 (23 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $107 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Celeron 2957U and Athlon XP 2800+ 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) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 1.4 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1.4 GHz | 2.25 GHz |
| Bus rate | 5 GT/s | no data |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 512K |
| L3 cache | 2 MB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 130 nm |
| Die size | no data | 101 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 63 million |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron 2957U and Athlon XP 2800+ 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 | FCBGA1168 | A |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 74 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 2957U and Athlon XP 2800+. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Smart Response | - | no data |
| GPIO | + | no data |
| Smart Connect | + | no data |
| FDI | - | no data |
| AMT | 9.5 | no data |
| Matrix Storage | - | no data |
| HD Audio | + | no data |
| RST | + | no data |
Security technologies
Celeron 2957U and Athlon XP 2800+ technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
| Secure Key | + | no data |
| OS Guard | - | no data |
| Anti-Theft | - | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 2957U and Athlon XP 2800+ are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | - | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 2957U and Athlon XP 2800+. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | no data |
| Maximum memory size | 16 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel® HD Graphics for 4th Generation Intel® Processors | no data |
| Quick Sync Video | + | - |
| Clear Video | + | no data |
| Graphics max frequency | 1 GHz | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron 2957U and Athlon XP 2800+ integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 3 | no data |
| eDP | + | no data |
| DisplayPort | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 2957U and Athlon XP 2800+.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 10 | no data |
| 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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.54 | 0.16 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 1 |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 74 Watt |
Celeron 2957U has a 237.5% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 490.9% more advanced lithography process, and 393.3% lower power consumption.
The Celeron 2957U is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon XP 2800+ in performance tests.
Be aware that Celeron 2957U is a notebook processor while Athlon XP 2800+ is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 2957U and Athlon XP 2800+, 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.
