Celeron N2815 vs Phenom II X4 X920 BE

Primary details

Comparing Phenom II X4 X920 BE and Celeron N2815 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2161not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Series4x AMD Phenom IIIntel Celeron
Power efficiency3.06no data
Architecture codenameChamplain (2010−2011)Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)
Release date12 May 2010 (14 years ago)1 December 2013 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$107

Detailed specifications

Phenom II X4 X920 BE and Celeron N2815 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 speedno data1.86 GHz
Boost clock speed2.3 GHz2.13 GHz
Bus rate3600 MHzno data
L1 cache256 KB112 KB
L2 cache2 MB1 MB
L3 cacheno data1 MB
Chip lithography45 nm22 nm
Maximum core temperatureno data105 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Phenom II X4 X920 BE and Celeron N2815 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.

SocketS1FCBGA1170
Power consumption (TDP)45 Watt7.5 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Phenom II X4 X920 BE and Celeron N2815. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsHyperTransport 3.0, Enhanced Virus Protection, AMD64, SSE4A, unlocked multiplierno data
VirusProtect+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Smart Connectno data+
RSTno data-

Security technologies

Phenom II X4 X920 BE and Celeron N2815 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDBno data+
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Phenom II X4 X920 BE and Celeron N2815 are enumerated here.

VT-dno data-
VT-xno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Phenom II X4 X920 BE and Celeron N2815. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3L-1066
Maximum memory sizeno data8 GB
Max memory channelsno data2

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataIntel® HD Graphics for Intel Atom® Processor Z3700 Series
Graphics max frequencyno data756 MHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Phenom II X4 X920 BE and Celeron N2815 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data2

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Phenom II X4 X920 BE and Celeron N2815.

PCIe versionno data2.0
PCI Express lanesno data4
USB revisionno data3.0 and 2.0
Total number of SATA portsno data2
Number of USB portsno data5

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.



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.

Phenom II X4 X920 BE 1935
+81.2%
Celeron N2815 1068

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.

Phenom II X4 X920 BE 7082
+247%
Celeron N2815 2038

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.

Phenom II X4 X920 BE 17.5
+230%
Celeron N2815 57.8

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.

Phenom II X4 X920 BE 3
+278%
Celeron N2815 1

Pros & cons summary


Recency 12 May 2010 1 December 2013
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 45 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 45 Watt 7 Watt

Phenom II X4 X920 BE has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

Celeron N2815, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 104.5% more advanced lithography process, and 542.9% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Phenom II X4 X920 BE and Celeron N2815. We've got no test results to judge.


Should you still have questions on choice between Phenom II X4 X920 BE and Celeron N2815, 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.


AMD Phenom II X4 X920 BE
Phenom II X4 X920 BE
Intel Celeron N2815
Celeron N2815

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.


4 12 votes

Rate Phenom II X4 X920 BE on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 39 votes

Rate Celeron N2815 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Phenom II X4 X920 BE or Celeron N2815, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.