Processor N200 vs Celeron Dual-Core SU2300

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron Dual-Core SU2300
2009
2 cores / 2 threads, 10 Watt
0.30
Processor N200
2023
4 cores / 4 threads, 6 Watt
1.56
+420%

Processor N200 outperforms Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 by a whopping 420% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 and Processor N200 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking30962109
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel Celeron Dual-CoreIntel Alder Lake-N
Power efficiencyno data24.61
Architecture codenamePenryn (2008−2011)Alder Lake-N (2023)
Release date1 September 2009 (15 years ago)3 January 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$134$193

Detailed specifications

Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 and Processor N200 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 cores2 (Dual-core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads24
Base clock speedno data0.1 GHz
Boost clock speed1.2 GHz3.7 GHz
Bus rate800 MHzno data
L1 cacheno data96 KB (per core)
L2 cache1 MB2 MB (shared)
L3 cacheno data6 MB (shared)
Chip lithography45 nm10 nm
Die size107 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature100 °C105 °C
Number of transistors410 Millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 and Processor N200 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 configurationno data1
SocketBGA956Intel BGA 1264
Power consumption (TDP)10 Watt6 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 and Processor N200. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI-+
AVX-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Thermal Monitoring+-

Security technologies

Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 and Processor N200 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 and Processor N200 are enumerated here.

VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 and Processor N200. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR4, DDR5 4800 MHz Single-channel

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataIntel UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake)

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 and Processor N200.

PCIe versionno data3.0
PCI Express lanesno data9

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.

Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 0.30
Processor N200 1.56
+420%

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.

Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 1250
Processor N200 3937
+215%

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.

Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 2380
Processor N200 7549
+217%

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.

Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 1000
Processor N200 3902
+290%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.30 1.56
Recency 1 September 2009 3 January 2023
Physical cores 2 4
Threads 2 4
Chip lithography 45 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 10 Watt 6 Watt

Processor N200 has a 420% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 350% more advanced lithography process, and 66.7% lower power consumption.

The Processor N200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 and Processor N200, 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 Celeron Dual-Core SU2300
Celeron Dual-Core SU2300
Intel Processor N200
Processor N200

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.


3.3 7 votes

Rate Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 145 votes

Rate Processor N200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 or Processor N200, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.