Atom N450 vs Celeron E3400

VS

Primary details

Comparing Celeron E3400 and Atom N450 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2827not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.72no data
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Seriesno dataIntel Atom
Power efficiency0.80no data
Architecture codenameWolfdale (2008−2010)Pinetrail (2009−2011)
Release date17 January 2010 (14 years ago)21 December 2009 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$76$64

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron E3400 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 speed2.6 GHz1.66 GHz
Boost clock speed2.6 GHz1.67 GHz
Bus rateno data533 MHz
L1 cache64 KB (per core)56 KB (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (shared)512 KB (per core)
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography45 nm45 nm
Die size82 mm266 mm2
Maximum core temperature74 °C100 °C
Number of transistors228 million123 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage range0.85V-1.3625Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Celeron E3400 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 E3400 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 Switchingno data-

Security technologies

Celeron E3400 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 E3400 and Atom N450 are enumerated here.

VT-d--
VT-x+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron E3400 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 cardno dataOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron E3400 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.



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 E3400 869
+328%
Atom N450 203

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.

Celeron E3400 290
+303%
Atom N450 72

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.

Celeron E3400 485
+325%
Atom N450 114

Pros & cons summary


Physical cores 2 1
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 5 Watt

Celeron E3400 has 100% more physical cores.

Atom N450, on the other hand, has 1200% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Celeron E3400 and Atom N450. We've got no test results to judge.

Note that Celeron E3400 is a desktop processor while Atom N450 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron E3400 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 E3400
Celeron E3400
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.


3.2 268 votes

Rate Celeron E3400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 174 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 E3400 or Atom N450, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.