The T1600 is the faster CPU in benches, so I'd be inclined to think that it would be perform better than the atom, they both have two physical cores, while the N2800 uses hyper-threading to get 4 logical cores which can make a slight difference in performance in multi threaded applications, the main difference is just the power consumption and heat output. It goes without saying that the N2800 would be more power efficient due to it's 32nm fab process (smaller than the 65nm celeron), essentially, in terms of speed T1600 > N2800, in terms of efficiency N2800 > T1600, so if this is for a mobile application the atom would provide better battery life etc..
sources:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup. ... 40+1.86GHz
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup. ... 40+1.66GHz
_________________
Arch Linux x64, P8400, 4GB PC-6400
Ubuntu Linux/Win 7 x64 X4 955BE, 12GB PC-12000, GTX 570
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
An Ingenious New Process Could Make Computers 2x Faster—With |
20 Mar 2024, 1:35 pm |