Atom N2800 vs Celeron M 390
Aggregate performance score
Atom N2800 outperforms Celeron M 390 by an impressive 56% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 390 and Atom N2800 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3261 | 3135 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Celeron M | Intel Atom |
| Power efficiency | 0.82 | 3.81 |
| Architecture codename | Dothan (2004−2005) | Cedarview-M (2011−2012) |
| Release date | no data | 1 December 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $47 |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 390 and Atom N2800 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) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 1 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 1.7 GHz | 1.86 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.7 GHz | 1.87 GHz |
| Bus rate | 400 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 1 MB L2 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | no data | 66 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 176 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 1.004V-1.292V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 390 and Atom N2800 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, H-PBGA479 | FCBGA559 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 21 Watt | 6.5 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 390 and Atom N2800. 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 390 and Atom N2800 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | - |
| EDB | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M 390 and Atom N2800 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | - | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 390 and Atom N2800. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4.88 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 1 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 3650 (640 MHz) |
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.
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
| Performance score | 0.18 | 0.28 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 2 |
| Threads | 1 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 21 Watt | 6 Watt |
Atom N2800 has a 55.6% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads, a 181.3% more advanced lithography process, and 250% lower power consumption.
The Atom N2800 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M 390 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 390 and Atom N2800, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
