Celeron 1017U vs N2930

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron N2930
2014
4 cores / 4 threads, 7 Watt
0.66
Celeron 1017U
2013
2 cores / 2 threads, 17 Watt
0.98
+48.5%

1017U outperforms N2930 by a considerable 48% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron N2930 and Celeron 1017U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking27232466
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel CeleronIntel Celeron
Architecture codenameBay Trail-M (2013−2014)Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
Release date23 February 2014 (10 years ago)1 July 2013 (11 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Celeron N2930 and Celeron 1017U 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speed1.83 GHz1.6 GHz
Boost clock speed2.16 GHz1.6 GHz
Bus rateno data5 GT/s
L1 cache224 KB128 KB
L2 cache2 MB512 KB
L3 cache0 KB2 MB
Chip lithography22 nm22 nm
Die sizeno data94 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °C105 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron N2930 and Celeron 1017U 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 configuration11
SocketFCBGA1170FCBGA1023
Power consumption (TDP)7.5 Watt17 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N2930 and Celeron 1017U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
My WiFino data-
Turbo Boost Technology--
Hyper-Threading Technology--
Idle States++
Thermal Monitoring-+
Flex Memory Accessno data+
Demand Based Switchingno data-
Smart Connect+no data
FDIno data+
Fast Memory Accessno data+
StatusLaunchedDiscontinued
RST-no data

Security technologies

Celeron N2930 and Celeron 1017U technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDB++
Secure Key+no data
Anti-Theft--

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron N2930 and Celeron 1017U are enumerated here.

VT-d--
VT-x++
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron N2930 and Celeron 1017U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory size8 GB32 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidthno data25.6 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel® HD Graphics for Intel Atom® Processor Z3700 SeriesIntel® HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel® Processors
Quick Sync Video+-
Clear Video HD--
Graphics max frequency854 MHz1 GHz
InTru 3D--

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron N2930 and Celeron 1017U integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported23
eDPno data+
DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+
SDVOno data+
CRTno data+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron N2930 and Celeron 1017U.

PCIe version2.02.0
PCI Express lanes416
USB revision3.0 and 2.0no data
Total number of SATA ports2no data
Number of USB ports5no 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.

Celeron N2930 0.66
Celeron 1017U 0.98
+48.5%

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.

Celeron N2930 1018
Celeron 1017U 1508
+48.1%

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Celeron N2930 164
Celeron 1017U 263
+60.4%

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Celeron N2930 489
+7.5%
Celeron 1017U 455

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.

Celeron N2930 1132
Celeron 1017U 2201
+94.5%

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.

Celeron N2930 3880
Celeron 1017U 4155
+7.1%

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.

Celeron N2930 2214
+28.8%
Celeron 1017U 1719

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.

Celeron N2930 27.25
+70.2%
Celeron 1017U 46.38

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

Celeron N2930 2
+20.8%
Celeron 1017U 1

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark 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 loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

Celeron N2930 0.41
Celeron 1017U 0.61
+48.8%

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

Celeron N2930 0.2
+71.4%
Celeron 1017U 0.1

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Celeron N2930 1181
+2.7%
Celeron 1017U 1150

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

Celeron N2930 9
+22.9%
Celeron 1017U 8

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

Celeron N2930 47
+12.1%
Celeron 1017U 42

Geekbench 3 32-bit multi-core

Celeron N2930 2703
+17.1%
Celeron 1017U 2308

Geekbench 3 32-bit single-core

Celeron N2930 839
Celeron 1017U 1367
+62.9%

Geekbench 2

Celeron N2930 2968
+2.6%
Celeron 1017U 2892

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.66 0.98
Recency 23 February 2014 1 July 2013
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Power consumption (TDP) 7 Watt 17 Watt

Celeron N2930 has an age advantage of 7 months, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and 142.9% lower power consumption.

Celeron 1017U, on the other hand, has a 48.5% higher aggregate performance score.

The Celeron 1017U is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N2930 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron N2930 and Celeron 1017U, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Celeron N2930
Celeron N2930
Intel Celeron 1017U
Celeron 1017U

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.1 56 votes

Rate Celeron N2930 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 68 votes

Rate Celeron 1017U on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron N2930 or Celeron 1017U, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.