C-70 vs Celeron N2940

#ad
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary Details

Comparing Celeron N2940 and C-70 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking2598not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel CeleronAMD C-Series
Architecture codenameBay Trail-M (2013−2014)Ontario (2011−2012)
Release date22 May 2014 (9 years ago)1 September 2012 (11 years ago)
Current price$377 $107

Detailed Specifications

Celeron N2940 and C-70 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 GHz
Boost clock speed2.25 GHz1.33 GHz
L1 cache56K (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache512K (per core)512K (per core)
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography22 nm40 nm
Die sizeno data75 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplierNoNo

Compatibility

Information on Celeron N2940 and C-70 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
SocketFCBGA1170FT1 BGA 413-Ball
Power consumption (TDP)7.5 Watt9 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N2940 and C-70. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataMMX(+), SSE(1,2,3,3S,4A), AMD-V, Radeon HD 6290 (276-400 MHz)
AES-NI-no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Idle States+no data
Smart Connect+no data
StatusDiscontinuedno data

Security technologies

Celeron N2940 and C-70 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 N2940 and C-70 are enumerated here.

AMD-Vno data+
VT-d-no data
VT-x+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron N2940 and C-70. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3 Single-channel
Maximum memory size8 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth21.32 GB/sno data
ECC memory support-no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel® HD Graphics for Intel Atom® Processor Z3700 SeriesAMD Radeon HD 6290
Quick Sync Video+no data
Graphics max frequency854 MHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron N2940 and C-70 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported2no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron N2940 and C-70.

PCIe version2.0no data
PCI Express lanes4no data
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.


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.

Benchmark coverage: 68%

Celeron N2940 1039
+230%
C-70 315

Celeron N2940 outperforms C-70 by 230% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

Celeron N2940 165
+66.7%
C-70 99

Celeron N2940 outperforms C-70 by 67% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

Celeron N2940 491
+187%
C-70 171

Celeron N2940 outperforms C-70 by 187% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.

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%

Celeron N2940 1150
+44.1%
C-70 798

Celeron N2940 outperforms C-70 by 44% 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%

Celeron N2940 3958
+165%
C-70 1495

Celeron N2940 outperforms C-70 by 165% 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%

Celeron N2940 2191
+180%
C-70 782

Celeron N2940 outperforms C-70 by 180% 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 N2940 29.2
+236%
C-70 98.2

C-70 outperforms Celeron N2940 by 236% in wPrime 32.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

Celeron N2940 2
+332%
C-70 0

Celeron N2940 outperforms C-70 by 332% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

Celeron N2940 0.42
+82.6%
C-70 0.23

Celeron N2940 outperforms C-70 by 83% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core.

Pros & Cons Summary


Recency 22 May 2014 1 September 2012
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 22 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 7 Watt 9 Watt

We couldn't decide between Celeron N2940 and C-70. We've got no test results to judge.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron N2940 and C-70, 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 N2940
Celeron N2940
AMD C-70
C-70

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.


2.8 88 votes

Rate Celeron N2940 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.6 81 vote

Rate C-70 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & Сomments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron N2940 or C-70, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.