OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

Intel Celeron 1020E review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£25PassMark multi-core score:1406N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:N/A GHzCPU socket:FCPGA988TDP (Thermal design power):35 W

Intel Celeron 1020E Review: Compare 74 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

6.2/10

Overall score

Score
6.2/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
Score components

40%

4.5

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.2, the mark of a weaker model in this category

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 67% of processors
7.3

Value for money

Value for money
7.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Score components

70%

6.2

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 51%
4.5

Technical score

Technical score
4.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
Score components

60%

4.4

Performance

18%

3.8

Architecture

10%

3.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.8

Power & Thermal

4%

6.7

Platform

1%

7.6

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 71%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.2.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £25
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
    Loading category ranking...

    Technical Specifications of processor Intel Celeron 1020E

    Technical score
    Technical score
    4.5/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
    Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
    Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
    Score components:

    60%

    4.4

    Performance

    18%

    3.8

    Architecture

    10%

    3.8

    Memory & PCIe

    7%

    6.8

    Power & Thermal

    4%

    6.7

    Platform

    1%

    7.6

    Integrated graphics

    4.5
    Reviews score
    7.2
    List score
    ?
    Value for money
    Value for money
    7.3/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
    When it matters
    When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Score components:

    70%

    6.2

    Overall score

    30%

    10

    Price

    7.3
    Processor type
    embedded
    This processor belongs to the embedded processor class, which is less advanced than that of 93.1% of processors and equal to that of 6.9% of processors.
    CPU socket
    FCPGA988
    This processor uses the FCPGA988 CPU socket, which is older than that of 64.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.8% of processors.
    Chipset
    QM77, HM76
    This processor supports QM77, HM76 chipsets, which is narrower compatibility than 63.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
    CPU architecture
    x86-64
    This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
    Instruction sets
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2
    This processor supports SSE4.1, SSE4.2 instruction sets, which is narrower support than 99.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
    Show more
    N. of physical cores
    2
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has 2 CPU cores, which is fewer than 80.4% of processors and equal to 19.6% of processors.
    CPU threads
    2
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor offers 2 CPU threads, which is fewer than 94.3% of processors and equal to 5.6% of processors.
    CPU boost clock speed
    N/A
    CPU base clock speed
    2x 2.2 GHz
    This processor has a base clock of 2x2.2 GHz which is lower than that of 92.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
    PassMark multi-core score
    1,406
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor scores 1,406 in PassMark, which is lower than 97.7% of processors.
    Show more
    Semiconductor size
    22 nm
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor uses a 22 nm process node, which is older than that of 85% of processors and equal to that of 9.6% of processors.
    Foundry
    Intel 22 nm
    This processor is built on the Intel 22 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 84.9% of processors and equal to that of 9.8% of processors.
    L3 cache
    2 MB
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has an L3 cache of 2 MB which is smaller than that of 91% of processors and equal to that of 2.7% of processors.
    L2 cache
    0.5 MB
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has an L2 cache of 0.5 MB which is smaller than that of 85.4% of processors and equal to that of 14.5% of processors.
    L1 cache
    128 KB
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    This processor has an L1 cache of 128 KB which is smaller than that of 83.9% of processors and equal to that of 14.3% of processors.
    Show more
    DDR memory version
    DDR3
    This processor supports DDR DDR3, which is older than that of 86.7% of processors and equal to that of 13.3% of processors.
    Maximum memory speed
    1,600 MHz
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor supports memory speeds up to 1,600 MHz, which is lower than that of 87.7% of processors and equal to 10.8% of processors.
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    DDR3-1600 MHz
    This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR3-1600 MHz, which is lower than that of 89.1% of processors and equal to 8.4% of processors.
    Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
    N/A
    Maximum memory capacity
    16 GB
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    This processor supports up to 16 GB of memory, which is less than 92.2% of processors and equal to 6.1% of processors.
    Show more
    Integrated graphics
    yes
    This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
    Intel HD Graphics
    Integrated GPU model
    ?
    Integrated GPU execution units
    ?
    Integrated GPU base frequency
    650 MHz
    Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
    This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 650 MHz which is higher than that of 80.6% of processors and equal to that of 4.5% of processors.
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    N/A
    Show more
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    35 W
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a TDP of 35 W which is lower than that of 53.2% of processors and equal to that of 14% of processors.
    Base power (PL1)
    35 W
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a base power of 35 W which is lower than that of 53.3% of processors and equal to that of 14.1% of processors.
    Boost power (PL2)
    35 W
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a boost power of 35 W which is lower than that of 76.5% of processors and equal to that of 4.9% of processors.
    Tau (power duration limit)
    ?
    Configurable TDP
    no
    This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
    Show more

    Intel Celeron 1020E vs the average processor

    246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
    • 33.3% smaller die size
      This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (118 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
      118 mm² vs 177 mm²
    • 5 °C higher temperature limit
      This processor has a higher temperature limit than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
      105 °C vs 100 °C
    • 45.3% lower boost power
      This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (35 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
      35 W vs 64 W
    • Supports ECC memory
      This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
    • 10x cheaper
      Intel Celeron 1020E is cheaper than the average processor (£25 vs £250).
      £25 vs £250
    • 22.2% lower base power
      This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (35 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
      35 W vs 45 W
    • 85.7% higher GPU clock speed
      This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (650 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
      650 MHz vs 350 MHz
    • 10x cheaper
      Intel Celeron 1020E is cheaper than the average processor (£25 vs £250).
      £25 vs £250
    • 33.3% smaller die size
      This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (118 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
      118 mm² vs 177 mm²
    • Supports ECC memory
      This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
    • 85.7% higher GPU clock speed
      This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (650 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
      650 MHz vs 350 MHz
    • 5 °C higher temperature limit
      This processor has a higher temperature limit than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
      105 °C vs 100 °C
    • 45.3% lower boost power
      This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (35 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
      35 W vs 64 W
    • 22.2% lower base power
      This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (35 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
      35 W vs 45 W
    • 87.7% lower PassMark score
      This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,406 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
      1,406 vs 11,469
    • 52.2% weaker single-core performance
      This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,224 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
      1,224 vs 2,558
    • 4 fewer CPU cores
      This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
      2 vs 6
    • Narrower instruction support
      This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
      SSE4.1, SSE4.2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
    • 83.3% larger process node
      This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (22 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
      22 nm vs 12 nm
    • 6 fewer CPU threads
      This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (2 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
      2 vs 8
    • Weaker security extensions
      This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (NX bit vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
      NX bit vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
    • Lower base clock
      This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x2.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
      2x2.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
    • Narrower instruction support
      This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
      SSE4.1, SSE4.2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
    • Weaker security extensions
      This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (NX bit vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
      NX bit vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
    • 7 years older release date
      This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2013 vs 2020).
      January 2013
      2013 vs 2020
    • 87.7% lower PassMark score
      This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,406 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
      1,406 vs 11,469
    • 52.2% weaker single-core performance
      This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,224 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
      1,224 vs 2,558
    • 4 fewer CPU cores
      This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
      2 vs 6
    • 6 fewer CPU threads
      This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (2 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
      2 vs 8
    • Lower base clock
      This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x2.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
      2x2.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
    • 2 fewer performance cores
      This processor has fewer performance cores than the average processor (2 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
      2 vs 4
    • No simultaneous multithreading
      This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
    • No speed boosting
      This processor does not support automatic speed boosting, while the average processor does. 87.7% of processors offer this.
    • 37.5% lower bus transfer rate
      This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
      5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
    • 6 lower clock multiplier
      This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (22 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
      22 vs 28
    • 83.3% larger process node
      This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (22 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
      22 nm vs 12 nm
    • 45.9% less L3 per core
      This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
      1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
    • 83.3% smaller L2 cache
      This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (0.5 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
      0.5 MB vs 3 MB
    • Less advanced microarchitecture
      This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Ivy Bridge vs Kaby Lake).
      Ivy Bridge vs Kaby Lake
    • 77.8% smaller L3 cache
      This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (2 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
      2 MB vs 9 MB
    • 50% less L2 per core
      This processor has less L2 cache per core than the average processor (0.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
      0.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
    • 66.7% smaller L1 cache
      This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (128 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
      128 KB vs 384 KB
    • 71.7% fewer transistors
      This processor has fewer transistors than the average processor (1.4 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
      1.4 billion vs 4.95 billion
    • Less advanced foundry
      This processor uses a less advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 22 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
      Intel 22 nm vs Intel 14 nm
    • 50% lower memory speed
      This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (1,600 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
      1,600 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
    • 45.4% lower memory bandwidth
      This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (25.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
      25.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
    • Older DDR support
      This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3 vs DDR4).
      DDR3 vs DDR4
    • Older PCIe version
      This processor supports an older PCIe version than the average processor (2 vs 3).
      2 vs 3
    • Lower JEDEC memory speed
      This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR3-1600 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
      DDR3-1,600 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
    • 75% less memory capacity
      This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (16 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
      16 GB vs 64 GB
    • Limited PCIe bifurcation
      This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
      x16, x8/x8 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
    • No configurable TDP
      This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
    • 5 °C higher CPU temperature
      This processor has a higher CPU temperature than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
      105 °C vs 100 °C

    Third-party reviews

    What customers like about Intel Celeron 1020E

    • Cost-effective and affordable for budget builds or basic embedded systems.
    • Sufficient for basic productivity like web browsing, emails, and word processing.
    • Stable and reliable performance for low-demand, non-intensive tasks.
    • Integrated graphics are capable of handling standard 1080p media playback.
    • Supports ECC memory, which is uncommon for entry-level consumer chips.
    • Low power consumption compared to higher-end desktop processors.

    What customers don't like about Intel Celeron 1020E

    • Weak multitasking due to having only 2 cores and 2 threads without Hyper-Threading.
    • Lacks modern features like Turbo Boost, AES-NI, and Quick Sync video.
    • Poor gaming performance; struggle with most modern 3D titles and AAA games.
    • Insufficient for heavy workloads like video editing, CAD, or virtualization.
    • Higher 35W TDP compared to more efficient mobile-focused Celeron variants.
    • Noticeable slowdowns or high CPU usage during background system updates.
    • Dated Ivy Bridge architecture limits its long-term future-proofing.

    Verdict

    The Intel Celeron 1020E is an entry-level, dual-core embedded processor based on the 22nm Ivy Bridge architecture, featuring a base clock speed of 2.20 GHz, a 2 MB L3 cache, and a 35W TDP. Its main characteristics include support for up to 16 GB of dual-channel DDR3/L-1600 memory and integrated Intel HD Graphics with a dynamic frequency ranging from 650 MHz to 1.0 GHz. Key pros include ECC memory support (on BGA models), hardware virtualization (VT-x), and an industrial-grade design suitable for embedded systems like digital signage and medical equipment. However, significant cons include the lack of Turbo Boost, Hyper-Threading, and AES-NI instructions, alongside limited graphics performance that is only suitable for basic tasks and legacy software.

    Compare Intel Celeron 1020E with other processors

    1Product to compare no. 1
    VS
    2Product to compare no. 2
    VS
    3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

    Graphic comparison of Intel Celeron 1020E and other processors

    No results found