Processor N200 vs Celeron M U3400
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M U3400 and Processor N200 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | not rated | 2001 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron M | Intel Alder Lake-N |
| Architecture codename | Arrandale (2010−2011) | Alder Lake-N |
| Release date | 24 May 2010 (13 years ago) | 3 January 2023 (1 year ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M U3400 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 44 x 3.7 GHz Intel Crestmont E-Core |
| Base clock speed | no data | 0.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.06 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| Bus support | 2500 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 96 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 2 MB (shared) |
| L3 cache | 2 MB | 6 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 10 nm |
| Die size | 81+114 mm2 | no data |
| Number of transistors | 382+177 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M U3400 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 | BGA1288 | Intel BGA 1264 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 6 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M U3400 and Processor N200. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | no data | + |
| AVX | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | no data |
| Flex Memory Access | + | no data |
| Fast Memory Access | + | no data |
Security technologies
Celeron M U3400 and Processor N200 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M U3400 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 U3400 and Processor N200. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4, DDR54800 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) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron M U3400 and Processor N200.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 9 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core
Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.
Benchmark coverage: 20%
Processor N200 outperforms Celeron M U3400 by 227% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.
Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.
Benchmark coverage: 19%
Processor N200 outperforms Celeron M U3400 by 226% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.
3DMark06 CPU
3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.
Benchmark coverage: 19%
Processor N200 outperforms Celeron M U3400 by 295% in 3DMark06 CPU.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 18%
Celeron M U3400 outperforms Processor N200 by 139% in wPrime 32.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 24 May 2010 | 3 January 2023 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 4 |
| Threads | 2 | 44 x 3.7 GHz Intel Crestmont E-Core |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 6 Watt |
We couldn't decide between Celeron M U3400 and Processor N200. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M U3400 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.
