Atom N450 vs Celeron E1600

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron E1600
2009
2 cores / 2 threads, 65 Watt
0.53
+308%
Atom N450
2009
1 core / 2 threads, 5 Watt
0.13

Celeron E1600 outperforms Atom N450 by a whopping 308% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron E1600 and Atom N450 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking28683349
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Seriesno dataIntel Atom
Power efficiency0.772.05
Architecture codenameAllendale (2006−2009)Pinetrail (2009−2011)
Release date31 May 2009 (15 years ago)21 December 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$64

Detailed specifications

Celeron E1600 and Atom N450 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)1 (Single-Core)
Threads22
Base clock speed2.4 GHz1.66 GHz
Boost clock speed2.4 GHz1.67 GHz
Bus rateno data533 MHz
L1 cache64 KB (per core)56 KB (per core)
L2 cache512 KB (shared)512 KB (per core)
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography65 nm45 nm
Die size77 mm266 mm2
Maximum core temperature73 °C100 °C
Number of transistors105 million123 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage range0.85V-1.5Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Celeron E1600 and Atom N450 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 configuration11
SocketLGA775FCBGA559
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt5.5 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron E1600 and Atom N450. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE2, Intel® SSE3, Intel® SSSE3
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology--
Hyper-Threading Technology-+
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring++
Demand Based Switching--
FSB parity-no data

Security technologies

Celeron E1600 and Atom N450 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT--
EDB++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron E1600 and Atom N450 are enumerated here.

VT-d--
VT-x--

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron E1600 and Atom N450. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1, DDR2, DDR3DDR2
Maximum memory sizeno data2 GB
Max memory channelsno data1

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)On certain motherboards (Chipset feature)

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron E1600 and Atom N450.

PCIe version2.0no 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.

Celeron E1600 0.53
+308%
Atom N450 0.13

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.

Celeron E1600 840
+314%
Atom N450 203

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.53 0.13
Recency 31 May 2009 21 December 2009
Physical cores 2 1
Chip lithography 65 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 5 Watt

Celeron E1600 has a 307.7% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores.

Atom N450, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 months, a 44.4% more advanced lithography process, and 1200% lower power consumption.

The Celeron E1600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Atom N450 in performance tests.

Note that Celeron E1600 is a desktop processor while Atom N450 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron E1600 and Atom N450, 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 E1600
Celeron E1600
Intel Atom N450
Atom N450

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.


3.4 5 votes

Rate Celeron E1600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 182 votes

Rate Atom N450 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron E1600 or Atom N450, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.