Athlon 300U vs Celeron N2840
Aggregate performance score
Athlon 300U outperforms Celeron N2840 by a whopping 557% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron N2840 and Athlon 300U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3041 | 1771 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron | AMD Athlon |
| Power efficiency | 5.00 | 15.33 |
| Architecture codename | Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) | Raven Ridge 2 (2019) |
| Release date | 22 May 2014 (10 years ago) | 6 January 2019 (5 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron N2840 and Athlon 300U 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) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2.16 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.58 GHz | 3.3 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Multiplier | no data | 24 |
| L1 cache | 56K (per core) | 128K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 4 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | no data | 209.78 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 4940 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron N2840 and Athlon 300U 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 | 1 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FCBGA1170 | FP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7.5 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N2840 and Athlon 300U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | XFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Smart Connect | + | no data |
Security technologies
Celeron N2840 and Athlon 300U technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | + | no data |
| Secure Key | + | no data |
| Anti-Theft | - | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron N2840 and Athlon 300U are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-d | - | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron N2840 and Athlon 300U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| Maximum memory size | 8 GB | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 21.32 GB/s | 38.397 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Intel HD Graphics for Intel Atom Processor Z3700 Series | AMD Radeon RX Vega 3 ( - 1000 MHz) |
| Quick Sync Video | + | - |
| Graphics max frequency | 792 MHz | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron N2840 and Athlon 300U integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 2 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron N2840 and Athlon 300U.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 4 | 12 |
| USB revision | 3.0 and 2.0 | no data |
| Total number of SATA ports | 2 | no data |
| Number of USB ports | 5 | no 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.
Geekbench 3 32-bit multi-core
Geekbench 3 32-bit single-core
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.37 | 2.43 |
| Integrated graphics card | 0.77 | 2.98 |
| Recency | 22 May 2014 | 6 January 2019 |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7 Watt | 15 Watt |
Celeron N2840 has 114.3% lower power consumption.
Athlon 300U, on the other hand, has a 556.8% higher aggregate performance score, 287% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 4 years, 100% more threads, and a 57.1% more advanced lithography process.
The Athlon 300U is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N2840 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron N2840 and Athlon 300U, 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.
