Celeron N4500 vs N2940
Aggregate performance score
N4500 outperforms N2940 by an impressive 91% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron N2940 and Celeron N4500 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2633 | 2197 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron | no data |
| Architecture codename | Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) | Jasper Lake (2021) |
| Release date | 22 May 2014 (10 years ago) | 11 January 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Current price | $377 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Celeron N2940 and Celeron N4500 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 1.83 GHz | 1.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.25 GHz | 2.8 GHz |
| L1 cache | 56K (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 1.5 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 4 MB |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 10 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 105 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron N2940 and Celeron N4500 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 |
| Socket | FCBGA1170 | FCBGA1338 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7.5 Watt | 6 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N2940 and Celeron N4500. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | - |
| Idle States | + | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | no data | + |
| Smart Response | no data | - |
| GPIO | no data | + |
| Smart Connect | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | - |
| Status | Discontinued | Launched |
Security technologies
Celeron N2940 and Celeron N4500 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | + | no data |
| Secure Key | + | no data |
| Identity Protection | no data | + |
| SGX | no data | - |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
| Anti-Theft | - | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron N2940 and Celeron N4500 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | - | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron N2940 and Celeron N4500. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | 8 GB | 16 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 21.32 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | - | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel® HD Graphics for Intel Atom® Processor Z3700 Series | Intel UHD Graphics |
| Quick Sync Video | + | + |
| Graphics max frequency | 854 MHz | 750 MHz |
| Execution Units | no data | 16 |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron N2940 and Celeron N4500 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 2 | 3 |
| eDP | no data | + |
| DisplayPort | no data | + |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| MIPI-DSI | no data | + |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Celeron N2940 and Celeron N4500 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| 4K resolution support | no data | + |
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | no data | 4096x2160@60Hz |
| Max resolution over eDP | no data | 4096x2160@60Hz |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | no data | 4096x2160@60Hz |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Celeron N2940 and Celeron N4500 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 12 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron N2940 and Celeron N4500.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 4 | 8 |
| USB revision | 3.0 and 2.0 | 2.0/3.2 |
| Total number of SATA ports | 2 | no data |
| Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports | no data | 2 |
| Number of USB ports | 5 | 14 |
| Integrated LAN | no data | - |
| UART | 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.
N4500 outperforms N2940 by 91% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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%
N4500 outperforms N2940 by 91% 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%
N4500 outperforms N2940 by 165% 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%
N4500 outperforms N2940 by 43% in GeekBench 5 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%
N2940 outperforms N4500 by 7% 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%
N4500 outperforms N2940 by 72% 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%
N4500 outperforms N2940 by 31% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
Benchmark coverage: 15%
N4500 outperforms N2940 by 55% in Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 15%
N4500 outperforms N2940 by 131% in Cinebench 15 64-bit single-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%
N4500 outperforms N2940 by 148% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
N4500 outperforms N2940 by 358% in TrueCrypt AES.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
N4500 outperforms N2940 by 28% in x264 encoding pass 2.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
N4500 outperforms N2940 by 29% in x264 encoding pass 1.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.67 | 1.28 |
| Recency | 22 May 2014 | 11 January 2021 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7 Watt | 6 Watt |
The Celeron N4500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N2940 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron N2940 and Celeron N4500, 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.
