Atom C3508 vs Celeron B720
Aggregate performance score
Atom C3508 outperforms Celeron B720 by a whopping 119% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron B720 and Atom C3508 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2755 | 2279 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | Intel Celeron | Intel Atom |
| Architecture codename | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) | Goldmont (2016−2017) |
| Release date | 1 January 2012 (12 years ago) | 15 August 2017 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $70 | no data |
| Current price | $13.05 (0.2x MSRP) | no data |
Detailed specifications
Celeron B720 and Atom C3508 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 | 1 (Single-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 1.7 GHz | 1.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.7 GHz | 1.6 GHz |
| Bus support | 4 × 5 GT/s | no data |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 224 KB |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 8 MB |
| L3 cache | 1.5 MB (shared) | 8 MB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 131 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 90 °C |
| Number of transistors | 504 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron B720 and Atom C3508 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 | G2 (988B) | FCBGA1310 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 11.5 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron B720 and Atom C3508. 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 | - | + |
| FMA | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| QuickAssist | no data | + |
| My WiFi | - | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | - |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | no data |
| Flex Memory Access | + | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| FDI | + | no data |
| Fast Memory Access | + | no data |
| Status | Discontinued | Launched |
Security technologies
Celeron B720 and Atom C3508 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | no data |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Boot | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| SGX | no data | - |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
| Anti-Theft | - | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron B720 and Atom C3508 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | - | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron B720 and Atom C3508. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4: 1866 |
| Maximum memory size | 16 GB | 256 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 21.3 GB/s | 29.871 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel® HD Graphics for 2nd Generation Intel® Processors | no data |
| Graphics max frequency | 1 GHz | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron B720 and Atom C3508 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 2 | no data |
| eDP | + | no data |
| DisplayPort | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| SDVO | + | no data |
| CRT | + | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron B720 and Atom C3508.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 3 |
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | 8 |
| USB revision | no data | 3 |
| Total number of SATA ports | no data | 8 |
| Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports | no data | 8 |
| Number of USB ports | no data | 8 |
| Integrated LAN | no data | 4x2.5/1 GBE |
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.
Atom C3508 outperforms Celeron B720 by 119% 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%
Atom C3508 outperforms Celeron B720 by 121% in Passmark.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.53 | 1.16 |
| Recency | 1 January 2012 | 15 August 2017 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 4 |
| Threads | 1 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 11 Watt |
The Atom C3508 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron B720 in performance tests.
Be aware that Celeron B720 is a notebook processor while Atom C3508 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron B720 and Atom C3508, 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.
