Atom N280 vs Celeron M 380
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 380 and Atom N280 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Celeron M | Intel Atom |
| Architecture codename | Dothan (2004−2005) | DiamondVille (2008−2009) |
| Release date | no data (2024 years ago) | 1 February 2009 (15 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 380 and Atom N280 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) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 1.66 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 0.07 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | FSB |
| Bus rate | 400 MHz | 666.66 MT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 10 |
| L1 cache | no data | 56 KB |
| L2 cache | no data | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 1 MB L2 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | no data | 25.9638 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 90 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 47 Million |
| 64 bit support | - | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 1.004V-1.292V | 0.9V-1.1625V |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 380 and Atom N280 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 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | PPGA478, H-PBGA479 | PBGA437 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 21 Watt | 2.5 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 380 and Atom N280. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE2, Intel® SSE3, Intel® SSSE3 |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | - | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | + |
| Idle States | - | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Demand Based Switching | - | - |
| PAE | 32 Bit | no data |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
Security technologies
Celeron M 380 and Atom N280 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | - |
| EDB | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M 380 and Atom N280 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | - | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 380 and Atom N280. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Maximum memory size | no data | 8 GB |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
wPrime 32
wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.
Pros & cons summary
| Threads | 1 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 21 Watt | 2 Watt |
Atom N280 has 100% more threads, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 950% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Celeron M 380 and Atom N280. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 380 and Atom N280, 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.
