Celeron N2805 vs i7-940
Primary details
Comparing Core i7-940 and Celeron N2805 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1984 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.24 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | Core i7 (Desktop) | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 1.35 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Bloomfield (2008−2010) | Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) |
| Release date | November 2008 (16 years ago) | 11 September 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $299 | $107 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core i7-940 and Celeron N2805 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 | 8 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2.93 GHz | 1.46 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 1.46 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1333 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 56K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 8 MB (shared) | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | 263 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 68 °C | 80 °C |
| Number of transistors | 731 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Core i7-940 and Celeron N2805 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 | FCLGA1366 | FCBGA1170 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 4.3 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i7-940 and Celeron N2805. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.2 | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 1.0 | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | - |
| Idle States | + | + |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| PAE | 36 Bit | no data |
| Smart Connect | no data | + |
| RST | no data | - |
Security technologies
Core i7-940 and Celeron N2805 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
| EDB | + | + |
| Anti-Theft | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i7-940 and Celeron N2805 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i7-940 and Celeron N2805. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 24 GB | 4 GB |
| Max memory channels | 3 | 1 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel® HD Graphics for Intel Atom® Processor Z3700 Series |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 667 MHz |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Core i7-940 and Celeron N2805 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 2 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i7-940 and Celeron N2805.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 4 |
| USB revision | no data | 3.0 and 2.0 |
| Total number of SATA ports | no data | 2 |
| Number of USB ports | no data | 5 |
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 8 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 4 Watt |
i7-940 has 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads.
Celeron N2805, on the other hand, has a 104.5% more advanced lithography process, and 3150% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Core i7-940 and Celeron N2805. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Core i7-940 is a desktop processor while Celeron N2805 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i7-940 and Celeron N2805, 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.
