Atom N2600 vs Core 2 Duo T7300
Aggregate performance score
Core 2 Duo T7300 outperforms Atom N2600 by a whopping 115% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Duo T7300 and Atom N2600 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2964 | 3233 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Core 2 Duo | Intel Atom |
| Power efficiency | 1.20 | 4.73 |
| Architecture codename | Merom (2006−2008) | Cedarview-M (2011−2012) |
| Release date | 9 May 2007 (17 years ago) | 1 December 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $234 | $47 |
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Duo T7300 and Atom N2600 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 GHz | 1.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2 GHz | 1.6 GHz |
| Bus rate | 800 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 64 KB | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 4 MB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 143 mm2 | 66 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 291 Million | 176 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Duo T7300 and Atom N2600 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 | PBGA479,PPGA478 | FCBGA559 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 3.5 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Duo T7300 and Atom N2600. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE2, Intel® SSE3, Intel® SSSE3 |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | + |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Demand Based Switching | - | - |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
Security technologies
Core 2 Duo T7300 and Atom N2600 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | - |
| EDB | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Duo T7300 and Atom N2600 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Duo T7300 and Atom N2600. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 2.44 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 1 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 3600 (400 MHz) |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.43 | 0.20 |
| Recency | 9 May 2007 | 1 December 2011 |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 3 Watt |
Core 2 Duo T7300 has a 115% higher aggregate performance score.
Atom N2600, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, 100% more threads, a 103.1% more advanced lithography process, and 1066.7% lower power consumption.
The Core 2 Duo T7300 is our recommended choice as it beats the Atom N2600 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Duo T7300 and Atom N2600, 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.
