Celeron vs. Atom

Yes, they're both bad.

But which is the lesser of two evils? Does a dual core Celeron outperform a quad core Atom with a higher clock speed?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvermont#Mobile_processors_.28Bay_Trail-M.29
cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2541&cmp[]=2585
cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2388&cmp[]=2581
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>Does a dual core Celeron outperform a quad core Atom with a higher clock speed?
Probably

You sound retarded but my 2957U does everything I need from playing games up to 2008,playing remuxes and bluray disks,runs office like a champ I even work in 3ds Max 2015 and no problems what so ever.
They are more powerful than you might think.

>Intel will never release another G3258
Not cool

Intel changed their naming, now Atoms are Celeron.

>G3258
why is this CPU regarded as so great?

It's either G3258 or some other older intel cpu with the model name starting with G.

The naming structure doesn't work the way you think it does. Current model Celerons come in both Skylake and Atom variants and performance depends on multiple factors like power limiting, heat restrictions, or workload type.

Because it was an unlocked CPU, meaning you could overclock it to >4,4Ghz on a cheap b85 chipset.
Single core performance when overclocked was right around the stock i7.

Ok, so a Celeron N2840 vs. Atom X5-Z8500? I'd say both are pretty top-of-the-line models.

Those are both Atom-based cpus but the X5 is a generation newer with twice as many cores.

How do you know it's Atom based?

Celeron no contest.

The atom is an entirely different architecture, an x86-64 platform meant for low power mobile platforms with a focus on productivity and multitasking.

Celeron uses the mainstream skylake architecture, so the celeron is better in every aspect except power consumption.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvermont#Mobile_processors_.28Bay_Trail-M.29

You don't know what you're talking about

If you're on a laptop, the celeron will give better single core performance at the expensive of worse multi core and battery life. Personally, I'd go for the celeron. Atom is just too goddamn slow in single core to be useful.

This is literally not how it works, why are so many people on Sup Forums ignorant of this?

Atom, Celeron, Pentium, Core-i, and Xeon are just brand names for market placement. The two processors asked about () are both from the low-power microarchitecture. The N2840 is a dual-core based on the older 22nm Silvermont, while the x5 is a quad-core based on the newer 14mm Airmont and is over all much better. Branding is irrelevant here; the Celeron, Pentium, and Xeon names are used on both low-power Silvermont/Airmont and mainstream Haswell/Skylake/etc products.

This is more of a fair comparison. cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2541&cmp[]=2585

Celeron is slower but has legacy BIOS support and better Linux graphics drivers.
You can forget about Linux support on an Atom.

So Windows = Atom
Linux = Celeron

the atom is a mobile x86 cpu you fucking retards

my z8300 is 2 watt
the entire platform runs off 5v 2A usb power (cpu, ram, eMMC, wifi, bluetooth, USB, monitor, etc.)

running windows 10

Here are the exact models asked about as well
cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2388&cmp[]=2581

The Celeron we're talking about is an older version of the same thing. What's your point?

>comparing chips a year apart with different lithographies

What's the fucking point?

OP asked about those specifically.

Ok, definitely seems like an Atom can be better than a equivalent Celeron.

I currently have an ASUS X200M with that Celeron I mentioned, but even after upgrading the shit HDD to a 850 Evo, it still feels very sluggish (having more than 2 Chrome tabs + Skype in the background keeps CPU usage at 100%), despite booting in 10 seconds.

>Intel will never release an i3 with open multi

>ASUS X200M
I've got an X205TA with a Z3735F, it is quite shit at single core but can handle multiple tasks well. Skype is probably your biggest problem there. Try the web app.

Atoms are great for portable computers that will do simple stuff, like a MS Office machine and to browse internet but thats it.

The X205TA only has 2GB of RAM, though. So it's not better.

I was hoping there would be a cheaper laptop around the $200 range that came with a better processor that's not Atom or Celeron, but we're not there yet apparently.

You know you can get a thinkpad with a I5 for $220 right?

With a battery that actually lasts? I'd love to see that.

I currently have a Z70-80, which is 17", a bit too big and not portable enough, hence why I also have a X200MA for school. I need something around that size. I don't think ThinkPads come in screen sizes that small.

>the atom is a mobile x86 cpu you fucking retards
Nigga all I said was Intel changed its naming scheme, why are you throwing CPU architectures at me?