Notebookcheck Logo

Intel Celeron N2805 vs Intel Celeron N2807

Intel Celeron N2805

► remove from comparison Intel N2805

The Intel Celeron N2805 is a power efficient dual-core SoC for entry-level notebooks. It is clocked at up to 1.46 GHz and part of the Bay Trail-M platform. Thanks to the specially optimized 22 nanometer low-power process (P1271) with tri-gate transistors, performance and energy efficiency have been significantly improved compared to previous Intel Atom CPUs.

Architecture

The processor cores are based on the new Silvermont architecture, which is an out-of-order design for the first time. The increased utilization of the pipeline and many other improvements (optimized branch prediction, increased buffers, enhanced decoders) have increased the performance per clock by about 50 percent. At the same time, however, the Hyper-Threading feature of the previous generation has been removed. Other major changes are the support for new instruction set extensions such as SSE 4.1 and 4.2 as well as AES-NI (depending on the model).

Performance

Thanks to the improved performance per clock, the Celeron N2805 is faster than previous Intel Atoms, e.g. the N2600. According to our benchmarks, the N2805 competes with AMD APUs like the AMD E1-2100. For very simple everyday tasks such as Internet or Office the performance is adequate, but not for more complex software or modern games.

Graphics

The graphics unit of Bay Trail is based on the Intel Gen7 architecture, which supports DirectX 11 and is also found in the Ivy Bridge series (e.g. HD Graphics 4000). With only 4 EUs (Execution Units) and a relatively low clock speed of up to 667 MHz, the GPU is even slower than the HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge). Therefore, only very old and less demanding games will run fluently.

Power Consumption

The entire SoC is rated at a TDP of 4.3 watts (2.5 W SDP). Thus, the chip can be used in compact subnotebooks.

Intel Celeron N2807

► remove from comparison Intel N2807

The Intel Celeron N2807 is a power efficient dual-core SoC for entry-level notebooks. It is clocked at 1.6 - 2.2 GHz and part of the Bay Trail-M platform. Thanks to the specially optimized 22 nanometer low-power process (P1271) with tri-gate transistors, performance and energy efficiency have been significantly improved compared to previous Intel Atom CPUs.

Architecture

The processor cores are based on the new Silvermont architecture, which is an out-of-order design for the first time. The increased utilization of the pipeline and many other improvements (optimized branch prediction, increased buffers, enhanced decoders) have increased the performance per clock by about 50 percent. At the same time, however, the Hyper-Threading feature of the previous generation has been removed. Other major changes are the support for new instruction set extensions such as SSE 4.1 and 4.2 as well as AES-NI (depending on the model).

Performance

Thanks to the improved performance per clock, the Celeron N2807 is clearly faster than previous Intel Atoms, e.g. the N2800. According to our benchmarks, the N2807 competes with AMD APUs like the AMD E1-1500. For simple everyday tasks such as Internet or Office the performance is adequate, but not for more complex software or modern games.

Graphics

The graphics unit of Bay Trail is based on the Intel Gen7 architecture, which supports DirectX 11 and is also found in the Ivy Bridge series (e.g. HD Graphics 4000). With only 4 EUs (Execution Units) and a relatively low clock speed (313 - 750 MHz), the GPU is even slower than the HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge). Therefore, only older and less demanding games will run fluently.

Power Consumption

The entire SoC is rated at a TDP of 4.3 watts (3 W SDP). Thus, the chip can be used in compact subnotebooks.

ModelIntel Celeron N2805Intel Celeron N2807
SeriesIntel CeleronIntel Celeron
CodenameBay Trail-MBay Trail-M
Series: Celeron Bay Trail-M
Intel Celeron N2940 compare1.83 - 2.25 GHz4 / 4
Intel Celeron N2930 compare1.83 - 2.16 GHz4 / 4
Intel Celeron N2920 compare1.86 - 2 GHz4 / 4
Intel Celeron N2840 compare2.16 - 2.58 GHz2 / 2
Intel Celeron N2910 compare1.6 GHz4 / 4
Intel Celeron N2830 compare2.16 - 2.41 GHz2 / 2
Intel Celeron N2820 compare2.17 - 2.39 GHz2 / 2
Intel Celeron N2815 compare1.86 - 2.13 GHz2 / 2
Intel Celeron N2810 compare2 GHz2 / 2
Intel Celeron N2808 compare1.58 - 2.25 GHz2 / 2
Intel Celeron N28071.58 - 2.16 GHz2 / 2
Intel Celeron N2806 compare1.58 - 2 GHz2 / 2
» Intel Celeron N28051.46 GHz2 / 2
Intel Celeron N2940 compare1.83 - 2.25 GHz4 / 4
Intel Celeron N2930 compare1.83 - 2.16 GHz4 / 4
Intel Celeron N2920 compare1.86 - 2 GHz4 / 4
Intel Celeron N2840 compare2.16 - 2.58 GHz2 / 2
Intel Celeron N2910 compare1.6 GHz4 / 4
Intel Celeron N2830 compare2.16 - 2.41 GHz2 / 2
Intel Celeron N2820 compare2.17 - 2.39 GHz2 / 2
Intel Celeron N2815 compare1.86 - 2.13 GHz2 / 2
Intel Celeron N2810 compare2 GHz2 / 2
Intel Celeron N2808 compare1.58 - 2.25 GHz2 / 2
» Intel Celeron N28071.58 - 2.16 GHz2 / 2
Intel Celeron N2806 compare1.58 - 2 GHz2 / 2
Intel Celeron N28051.46 GHz2 / 2
Clock1460 MHz1580 - 2160 MHz
L1 Cache112 KB112 KB
L2 Cache1 MB1 MB
Cores / Threads2 / 22 / 2
TDP4.3 Watt4.3 Watt
Technology22 nm22 nm
max. Temp.80 °C105 °C
FeaturesIntel HD Graphics (Bay Trail, 313 - 667 MHz), Single-Channel DDR3L-1066Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail, 313 - 750 MHz), Wireless Display, Quick Sync, Speedstep
iGPUIntel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (313 - 667 MHz)Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (313 - 750 MHz)
Architecturex86x86
$107 U.S.$107 U.S.
Announced
ManufacturerIntel Celeron N2805Intel Celeron N2807
SocketFCBGA1170

Benchmarks

Cinebench R15 - Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64 Bit
44 Points (0%)
65 Points (1%)
Cinebench R15 - Cinebench R15 CPU Single 64 Bit
24 Points (7%)
35 Points (11%)
Cinebench R11.5 - Cinebench R11.5 CPU Multi 64 Bit
100%
1 N2807 +
0.5 Points (1%)
Cinebench R11.5 - Cinebench R11.5 CPU Single 64 Bit
100%
1 N2807 +
0.3 Points (1%)
Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Rend. Single (32bit)
min: 739     avg: 756     median: 756 (7%)     max: 773 Points
986 Points (9%)
Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Rend. Multi (32bit)
min: 1393     avg: 1430     median: 1430 (2%)     max: 1467 Points
2093 Points (3%)
Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Rend. Multi (64bit)
100%
1 N2807 +
3047 Points (3%)
Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Rend. Single (64bit)
100%
1 N2807 +
1584 Points (10%)
wPrime 2.10 - wPrime 2.0 1024m *
2634 s (31%)
1763 s (21%)
wPrime 2.10 - wPrime 2.0 32m *
85.2 s (17%)
57.4 s (12%)
WinRAR - WinRAR 4.0
887 Points (5%)
408 Points (2%)
X264 HD Benchmark 4.0 - x264 Pass 2
3.1 fps (1%)
3.2 fps (1%)
X264 HD Benchmark 4.0 - x264 Pass 1
17.4 fps (5%)
17 fps (5%)
TrueCrypt - TrueCrypt Serpent
0 GB/s (0%)
0 GB/s (0%)
TrueCrypt - TrueCrypt Twofish
0.1 GB/s (0%)
0.1 GB/s (0%)
TrueCrypt - TrueCrypt AES
0.1 GB/s (0%)
0.1 GB/s (0%)
3DMark 06 - CPU - 3DMark 06 - CPU
100%
1 N2805 +
885 Points (2%)
Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 1M - Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 1M *
55.7 s (12%)
38.8 s (8%)
Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 2M - Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 2M *
121.2 s (5%)
84.7 s (4%)
Super Pi Mod 1.5 XS 32M - Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 32M *
2580 s (11%)
1806 s (8%)
3DMark Vantage - 3DM Vant. Perf. CPU no Physx
100%
1 N2805 +
1534 Points (1%)
3DMark 11 - 3DM11 Performance Physics
min: 568     avg: 638     median: 637.5 (2%)     max: 707 Points
976 Points (3%)
3DMark - 3DMark Ice Storm Physics
min: 6672     avg: 6723     median: 6723 (4%)     max: 6774 Points
6368 Points (4%)
3DMark - 3DMark Cloud Gate Physics
min: 512     avg: 521     median: 521 (1%)     max: 530 Points
548 Points (1%)
3DMark - 3DMark Fire Strike Standard Physics
100%
1 N2805 +
634 Points (1%)
Geekbench 3 - Geekbench 3 32 Bit Multi-Core
1017 Points (2%)
1089 Points (2%)
Geekbench 3 - Geekbench 3 32 Bit Single-Core
599 Points (12%)
688 Points (13%)
Geekbench 2 - 32 Bit - Geekbench Stream
1947 Points (16%)
2249 Points (18%)
Geekbench 2 - 32 Bit - Geekbench Memory
1712 Points (16%)
1974 Points (18%)
Geekbench 2 - 32 Bit - Geekbench Floating Point
1233 Points (2%)
1391 Points (3%)
Geekbench 2 - 32 Bit - Geekbench Integer
1397 Points (3%)
1576 Points (3%)
Geekbench 2 - 32 Bit - Geekbench Total Score
1457 Points (4%)
1658 Points (4%)

Average Benchmarks Intel Celeron N2805 → 100% n=25

Average Benchmarks Intel Celeron N2807 → 110% n=25

- Range of benchmark values for this graphics card
- Average benchmark values for this graphics card
* Smaller numbers mean a higher performance
1 This benchmark is not used for the average calculation

Add one or more devices and compare

In the following list you can select (and also search for) devices that should be added to the comparison. You can select more than one device.

restrict list:

show all (including archived), 2022, 2021
v1.18
log 05. 14:20:20

#0 checking url part for id 4578 +0s ... 0s

#1 checking url part for id 5682 +0s ... 0s

#2 not redirecting to Ajax server +0s ... 0s

#3 did not recreate cache, as it is less than 5 days old! Created at Wed, 05 Oct 2022 13:14:23 +0200 +0s ... 0s

#4 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.006s ... 0.006s

#5 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.002s ... 0.008s

#6 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.003s ... 0.012s

#7 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.012s

#8 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.012s

#9 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.012s

#10 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.012s

#11 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.012s

#12 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.012s

#13 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.012s

#14 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.012s

#15 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.012s

#16 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.012s

#17 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.012s

#18 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.012s

#19 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.012s

#20 composed specs +0s ... 0.012s

#21 did output specs +0s ... 0.012s

#22 getting avg benchmarks for device 4578 +0s ... 0.012s

#23 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.013s

#24 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.013s

#25 got single benchmarks 4578 +0.007s ... 0.02s

#26 getting avg benchmarks for device 5682 +0s ... 0.021s

#27 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.021s

#28 got single benchmarks 5682 +0.006s ... 0.027s

#29 got avg benchmarks for devices +0s ... 0.027s

#30 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.027s

#31 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.027s

#32 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.028s

#33 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.028s

#34 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.028s

#35 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.029s

#36 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.029s

#37 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.03s

#38 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.03s

#39 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.03s

#40 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.031s

#41 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.031s

#42 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.031s

#43 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.032s

#44 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.032s

#45 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.032s

#46 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.033s

#47 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.033s

#48 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.033s

#49 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.034s

#50 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.034s

#51 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.034s

#52 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.035s

#53 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.035s

#54 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.035s

#55 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.036s

#56 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.036s

#57 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.036s

#58 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.037s

#59 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.037s

#60 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.038s

#61 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.038s

#62 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.038s

#63 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.039s

#64 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.039s

#65 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.04s

#66 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.04s

#67 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.04s

#68 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.04s

#69 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.041s

#70 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.041s

#71 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.041s

#72 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.042s

#73 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.042s

#74 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.042s

#75 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.042s

#76 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.043s

#77 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.043s

#78 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.044s

#79 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.044s

#80 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.044s

#81 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.044s

#82 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.045s

#83 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.045s

#84 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.045s

#85 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.046s

#86 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.046s

#87 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.047s

#88 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.047s

#89 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.047s

#90 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.047s

#91 min, max, avg, median took s +0s ... 0.048s

#92 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.048s

#93 return log +0.004s ... 0.052s

Please share our article, every link counts!
.170
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Benchmarks / Tech > Processor Comparison - Head 2 Head
Redaktion, 2017-09- 8 (Update: 2017-09-11)