CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E5200 vs 1007U among all CPUs
Benchmark performance using all cores |
PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more |
Individual core benchmark performance |
PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more |
Integrated GPU performance for graphics |
Sky Diver and Cloud Gate |
Solved: The site CPUBOSS say that the Celeron N2815 have a 1MB of L2 Cache and the. Amazon.com: QOTOM Q107S-S02 Intel Celeron 1007u Dual-Core Processor ( 2M Cache, 1.50 GHz ) Mini pc: Computers & Accessories. 인텔® 셀러론® 프로세서 1007u (2m 캐시, 1.50 ghz) 사양, 기능, 가격, 호환성, 디자인 문서, 주문 코드, 사양 코드 등을 포함하는 빠른 참조 안내서. CPU:Intel Celeron 1007u Dual-Core Processor ( 2M Cache, 1.50 GHz ),Dual Core Configuration:4G DDR3 Ram 64G Msata SSD WIFI(2.Antennas) 2 LAN+1 HD Video Display+1 VGA+4 usb 2.0+1 COM We pre-install Unactivated Windows 7 for test and we do not provide any Windows license. If you prefer to other OS, please contact us.
Intel Celeron Processor 1007u 2m Cache 1.50 Ghz Wi-fi
Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing |
CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more |
How efficiently does the processor use electricity? |
Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more |
Are you paying a premium for performance? |
Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more |
Winner
IntelPentium E5200 CPUBoss recommends the IntelPentium E5200 based on its performance, single-core performance and value. See full details |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
Reasons to consider the
IntelPentium E5200 | Report a correction |
|
| Much better geekbench 3 AES single core score | 106,400 MB/s | vs | 78,500 MB/s | More than 35% better geekbench 3 AES single core score |
|---|
| Much more l2 cache | 2 MB | vs | 0.5 MB | 4x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later |
|---|
| Significantly higher clock speed | 2.5 GHz | vs | 1.5 GHz | More than 65% higher clock speed |
|---|
| Much better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score | 2,230 | vs | 1,995 | More than 10% better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score |
|---|
| Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3.78 GHz | vs | 1.5 GHz | More than 2.5x better overclocked clock speed (Air) |
|---|
| Much more l2 cache per core | 1 MB/core | vs | 0.25 MB/core | 4x more l2 cache per core |
|---|
| Much better performance per dollar | 1.45 pt/$ | vs | 0.99 pt/$ | More than 45% better performance per dollar |
|---|
| Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 3.9 GHz | vs | 1.5 GHz | More than 2.5x better overclocked clock speed (Water) |
|---|
Reasons to consider the
IntelCeleron 1007U | Report a correction |
|
| Much newer manufacturing process | 22 nm | vs | 45 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor |
|---|
| Has a built-in GPU | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required |
|---|
| Has virtualization support | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Boosts performance of virtual machines |
|---|
| Much lower typical power consumption | 13.81W | vs | 52.81W | 3.8x lower typical power consumption |
|---|
| Much higher Maximum operating temperature | 105 °C | vs | 74.1 °C | More than 40% higher Maximum operating temperature |
|---|
| Newer | Jan, 2013 | vs | Jul, 2008 | Release date over 4 years later |
|---|
| Better performance per watt | 4.38 pt/W | vs | 1.6 pt/W | Around 2.8x better performance per watt |
|---|
| Much lower annual home energy cost | 4.1 $/year | vs | 15.66 $/year | 3.8x lower annual home energy cost |
|---|
| Much lower annual commercial energy cost | 14.89 $/year | vs | 56.94 $/year | 3.8x lower annual commercial energy cost |
|---|
Benchmarks Real world tests of Pentium E5200 vs Celeron 1007U
Intel Celeron Processor 1007u 2m Cache 1.50 Ghz Processor
GeekBench 3 (Multi-core)Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench 3 (Single core)Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench 3 (AES single core)Data courtesy Primate Labs
summary | Pentium E5200 | vs | Celeron 1007U |
|---|
| Clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 1.5 GHz |
|---|
| Cores | Dual core | Dual core |
|---|
| Socket type |
|---|
| LGA 775 |
| BGA 1023 |
features |
|---|
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes |
|---|
| Supports trusted computing | No | No |
|---|
| Has virtualization support | No | Yes |
|---|
| Instruction set extensions |
|---|
| SSE2 |
| MMX |
| SSE4 |
| SSE3 |
| SSE |
| SSE4.1 |
| SSE4.2 |
| Supplemental SSE3 |
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes |
|---|
power consumption |
|---|
| TDP | 65W | 17W |
|---|
| Annual home energy cost | 15.66 $/year | 4.1 $/year |
|---|
| Annual commercial energy cost | 56.94 $/year | 14.89 $/year |
|---|
| Performance per watt | 1.6 pt/W | 4.38 pt/W |
|---|
| Typical power consumption | 52.81W | 13.81W |
|---|
details | Pentium E5200 | vs | Celeron 1007U |
|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 |
|---|
| Threads | 2 | 2 |
|---|
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 0.5 MB |
|---|
| L2 cache per core | 1 MB/core | 0.25 MB/core |
|---|
| Manufacture process | 45 nm | 22 nm |
|---|
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 |
|---|
| Clock multiplier | 12 | 15 |
|---|
| Operating temperature | Unknown - 74.1°C | Unknown - 105°C |
|---|
overclocking |
|---|
| Overclocked clock speed | 3.78 GHz | 1.5 GHz |
|---|
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 3.9 GHz | 1.5 GHz |
|---|
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3.78 GHz | 1.5 GHz |
|---|
integrated graphics |
|---|
| GPU | None | GPU |
|---|
| Label | N/A | Intel® HD Graphics |
|---|
| Number of displays supported | N/A | 3 |
|---|
| GPU clock speed | N/A | 350 MHz |
|---|
| Turbo clock speed | N/A | 1,000 MHz |
|---|
bus |
|---|
| Architecture | FSB | DMI |
|---|
| Number of links | 1 | 1 |
|---|
Intel Celeron Processor 1007u 2m Cache 1.50 Ghz -
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
Reasons to consider the
IntelCore i3 3217U | Report a correction |
|
CPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the Core i3 3217U vs the Celeron 1007U. |
Reasons to consider the
IntelCeleron 1007U | Report a correction |
|
CPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the Celeron 1007U vs the Core i3 3217U. Stickfigure Animator is the new application for Android™ devices that allow users to create stick figure animations without the use of a computer. The app allows you to create animations quickly from your device; and is an easy. Pivot stickfigure animator free download - Stick Nodes Pro - Stickfigure Animator, and many more programs. Pivot Animator 4.2.8 Now available. The latest version of Pivot, which is more stable, especially when dealing with large animation files. They will load faster and using less memory. Several other minor issues have been fixed. The frame repeat value is now shown in the timeline thumbnails. See the readme.txt file for a full list of. Pivot Stickfigure Animator is a unique software, that allows you to create stick figure animations easily and without any artistic skills. You can move the sections of the stick figure and easily create a chain of animation frames that can be previewed as you go. Pivot stickfigure animator. |
Intel Celeron Processor 1007u 2m Cache 1.50 Ghz Core I5
Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i3 3217U vs Celeron 1007U
CompuBench 1.5 (Bitcoin mining)Data courtesy CompuBench
PCMark 8 Home 3.0 AcceleratedData courtesy FutureMark
GeekBench 3 (Multi-core)Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench 3 (Single core)Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench 3 (AES single core)Data courtesy Primate Labs
summary | Core i3 3217U | vs | Celeron 1007U |
|---|
| Clock speed | 1.8 GHz | 1.5 GHz |
|---|
| Cores | Dual core | Dual core |
|---|
| Socket type |
|---|
| BGA 1023 |
features |
|---|
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes |
|---|
| Supports trusted computing | No | No |
|---|
| Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes |
|---|
| Instruction set extensions |
|---|
| SSE2 |
| MMX |
| SSE4 |
| AVX |
| SSE3 |
| SSE |
| SSE4.1 |
| SSE4.2 |
| Supplemental SSE3 |
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes |
|---|
power consumption |
|---|
| TDP | 17W | 17W |
|---|
| Annual home energy cost | 4.1 $/year | 4.1 $/year |
|---|
| Performance per watt | 6.98 pt/W | 4.38 pt/W |
|---|
| Typical power consumption | 13.81W | 13.81W |
|---|
bus |
|---|
| Architecture | DMI 2.0 | DMI |
|---|
| Number of links | 1 | 1 |
|---|
| Transfer rate | 5,000 MT/s | 5,000 MT/s |
|---|
details | Core i3 3217U | vs | Celeron 1007U |
|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 |
|---|
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
|---|
| L2 cache | 0.5 MB | 0.5 MB |
|---|
| L2 cache per core | 0.25 MB/core | 0.25 MB/core |
|---|
| L3 cache | 3 MB | 2 MB |
|---|
| L3 cache per core | 1.5 MB/core | 1 MB/core |
|---|
| Manufacture process | 22 nm | 22 nm |
|---|
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 |
|---|
| Clock multiplier | 18 | 15 |
|---|
| Operating temperature | Unknown - 105°C | Unknown - 105°C |
|---|
overclocking |
|---|
| Overclocked clock speed | 1.8 GHz | 1.5 GHz |
|---|
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 1.8 GHz | 1.5 GHz |
|---|
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 1.8 GHz | 1.5 GHz |
|---|
integrated graphics |
|---|
| GPU | GPU | GPU |
|---|
| Label | Intel® HD Graphics 4000 | Intel® HD Graphics |
|---|
| Number of displays supported | 3 | 3 |
|---|
| GPU clock speed | 350 MHz | 350 MHz |
|---|
| Turbo clock speed | 1,050 MHz | 1,000 MHz |
|---|
memory controller |
|---|
| Memory controller | Built-in | Built-in |
|---|
| Memory type |
|---|
| DDR3-1600 |
| DDR3L-1600 |
| DDR3-1333 |
| DDR3L-1333 |
| DDR3RS-1600 |
| DDR3RS-1333 |
| DDR3 |
| Channels | Dual Channel | Dual Channel |
|---|
| Supports ECC | No | No |
|---|
| Maximum bandwidth | 25,600 MB/s | 12,800 MB/s |
|---|