Processor N200 vs Celeron M 330
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 330 and Processor N200 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 2109 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Celeron M | Intel Alder Lake-N |
| Power efficiency | no data | 24.61 |
| Architecture codename | Banias (2003) | Alder Lake-N (2023) |
| Release date | no data (2024 years ago) | 3 January 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $193 |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 330 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 cores | 1 (Single-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 1.4 GHz | 0.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.4 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| Bus rate | 400 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 96 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 2 MB (shared) |
| L3 cache | 512 KB L2 | 6 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 10 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 105 °C |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| VID voltage range | 1.356V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 330 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 configuration | no data | 1 |
| Socket | PPGA478 | Intel BGA 1264 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 24.5 Watt | 6 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 330 and Processor N200. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | - | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | - | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| PAE | 32 Bit | no data |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
Security technologies
Celeron M 330 and Processor N200 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | + |
| EDB | - | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M 330 and Processor N200 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 330 and Processor N200. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4, DDR5 4800 MHz Single-channel |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) (450 - 750 MHz) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron M 330 and Processor N200.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 9 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 1 | 4 |
| Threads | 1 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 24 Watt | 6 Watt |
Processor N200 has 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, a 1200% more advanced lithography process, and 300% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Celeron M 330 and Processor N200. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 330 and Processor N200, 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.
