Celeron N2910 vs E2-1800
Aggregate performance score
Celeron N2910 outperforms E2-1800 by an impressive 75% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing E2-1800 and Celeron N2910 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3133 | 2905 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | AMD E-Series | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 1.47 | 6.62 |
| Architecture codename | Zacate (2011−2013) | Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) |
| Release date | 6 June 2012 (12 years ago) | 11 September 2013 (11 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
E2-1800 and Celeron N2910 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) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 1.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.7 GHz | 1.6 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 56K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | 75 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 100 °C | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on E2-1800 and Celeron N2910 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 | FT1 BGA 413-Ball | FCBGA1170 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 7.5 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by E2-1800 and Celeron N2910. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX(+), SSE(1,2,3,3S,4A), AMD-V | no data |
| PowerNow | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Smart Connect | no data | + |
| RST | no data | - |
Security technologies
E2-1800 and Celeron N2910 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | no data | + |
| Anti-Theft | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by E2-1800 and Celeron N2910 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by E2-1800 and Celeron N2910. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 8.79 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | AMD Radeon HD 7340 | Intel HD Graphics for Intel Atom Processor Z3700 Series |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 756 MHz |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of E2-1800 and Celeron N2910 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 2 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by E2-1800 and Celeron N2910.
| 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Geekbench 2
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.28 | 0.49 |
| Integrated graphics card | 0.40 | 0.77 |
| Recency | 6 June 2012 | 11 September 2013 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 4 |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 7 Watt |
Celeron N2910 has a 75% higher aggregate performance score, 92.5% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 1 year, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 81.8% more advanced lithography process, and 157.1% lower power consumption.
The Celeron N2910 is our recommended choice as it beats the E2-1800 in performance tests.
Note that E2-1800 is a desktop processor while Celeron N2910 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between E2-1800 and Celeron N2910, 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.
