OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v1.0
Processors Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Processors Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Processors Methodology v1.0

Intel Celeron N2808 Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£25PassMark benchmark result:491N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:2.25 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1170TDP (Thermal design power):4.5 W

Intel Celeron N2808 Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

4.5

Overall score

Score
4.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the processor's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best processors on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
Score components

90%

4.5

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–¼Worse than 75% of processors
4.5

Technical score

Technical score
4.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
Score components

60%

4.3

Performance

18%

4.5

Cache & Architecture

10%

3.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.0

Power & Thermal

4%

6.6

Platform

1%

6.2

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 70% of processors
?

User score

User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    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 N2808

Technical score
Technical score
4.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
Score components:

60%

4.3

Performance

18%

4.5

Cache & Architecture

10%

3.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.0

Power & Thermal

4%

6.6

Platform

1%

6.2

Integrated Graphics

4.5
User score
User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

?
Popularity
Popularity
1.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
Intel Celeron N2808 has a popularity score of 1 point, which is higher than that of 0% of products in this category.
1.0
Value for money
Value for money
6.2/ 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 68% of models
Score components:

60%

4.5

Overall score

40%

10

Price

6.2
Brand name
Intel
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
â–¼ Worse than 44% of models
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 7.3% of processors and equal to that of 48.6% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA1170
CPU socket
FCBGA1170
â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
This processor uses the FCBGA1170 CPU socket, which is older than that of 94.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
â–² Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
2
N. of physical cores
2
â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 2 CPU cores, which is fewer than 79.3% of processors and equal to 20.6% of processors.
CPU threads
2
CPU threads
2
â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 2 CPU threads, which is fewer than 94% of processors and equal to 5.9% of processors.
Threads per core
1
Threads per core
1
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <0 – >2.5
This processor offers 1 threads per core, which is fewer than 69.8% of processors and equal to 30.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
2.25 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
2.25 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 2.25 GHz which is lower than that of 99.2% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
2x 1.58 GHz
CPU base clock speed
2x 1.58 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
This processor has a base clock of 2x1.58 GHz which is lower than that of 96.7% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
22 nm
Semiconductor size
22 nm
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 22 nm process node, which is older than that of 84.6% of processors and equal to that of 10.1% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 22 nm
Foundry
Intel 22 nm
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
This processor is built on the Intel 22 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 84.6% of processors and equal to that of 10.1% of processors.
L3 cache
0 MB
L3 cache
0 MB
â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 0 MB which is smaller than that of 93.6% of processors and equal to that of 6.4% of processors.
L2 cache
1 MB
L2 cache
1 MB
â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 1 MB which is smaller than that of 66.9% of processors and equal to that of 17.7% of processors.
L1 cache
112 KB
L1 cache
112 KB
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 112 KB which is smaller than that of 98.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR3L
DDR memory version
DDR3L
â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR3L, which is older than that of 84.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.2% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
1,333 MHz
Maximum memory speed
1,333 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 1,333 MHz, which is lower than that of 98.6% of processors and equal to 1.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR3L-1333 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR3L-1333 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 100% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR3L-1333 MHz, which is lower than that of 99.9% of processors and equal to 0.1% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
4 GB
Maximum memory capacity
4 GB
â–¼ Worse than 100% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 4 GB of memory, which is less than 100% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
â–² Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Intel HD Graphics
Integrated GPU model
?
Integrated GPU execution units
4
Integrated GPU execution units
4
â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 4 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 90.4% of processors and equal to 2.6% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
311 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
311 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 311 MHz which is lower than that of 58% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode)
â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 58.1% of processors and equal to 1.3% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
4.5 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
4.5 W
★ Better than 99% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 4.5 W which is lower than that of 99.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
4.5 W
Base power (PL1)
4.5 W
★ Better than 99% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 4.5 W which is lower than that of 99.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
Configurable TDP
no
â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
Show more

Intel Celeron N2808 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 90% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    4.5 W
    ★ Better than 99% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (4.5 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    4.5 W vs 45 W
  • 90% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    4.5 W
    ★ Better than 99% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (4.5 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    4.5 W vs 45 W
  • 39.5% smaller die size
    Die size
    107 mm²
    â–² Better than 86% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (107 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    107 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 10x cheaper
    Intel Celeron N2808 is cheaper than the average processor (£25 vs £250).
    £25 vs £250
  • 10x cheaper
    Intel Celeron N2808 is cheaper than the average processor (£25 vs £250).
    £25 vs £250
  • 39.5% smaller die size
    Die size
    107 mm²
    â–² Better than 86% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (107 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    107 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 90% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    4.5 W
    ★ Better than 99% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (4.5 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    4.5 W vs 45 W
  • 90% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    4.5 W
    ★ Better than 99% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (4.5 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    4.5 W vs 45 W
  • 95.4% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    491
    â–¼ Worse than 100% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (491 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    491 vs 10,572.5
  • 77% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    576
    â–¼ Worse than 100% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (576 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    576 vs 2,500
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    2
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 47.7% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    2.25 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.3 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    2.25 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 83.3% larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    22 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    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
    CPU threads
    2
    â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    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
    CPU base clock speed
    2 x 1.58 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x1.58 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    2x1.58 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • No configurable TDP
    Configurable TDP
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 6.4% worse value for money
    Intel Celeron N2808 has worse value for money than the average processor (6.17 vs 6.6).
    6.17 vs 6.56
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES
    â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • 6 years older release date
    Release date
    2014
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2014 vs 2020).
    May 2014
    2014 vs 2020
  • Older CPU socket
    CPU socket
    FCBGA1170
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1170 vs FP4).
    FCBGA1170 vs FP4
  • 95.4% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    491
    â–¼ Worse than 100% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (491 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    491 vs 10,572.5
  • 77% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    576
    â–¼ Worse than 100% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (576 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    576 vs 2,500
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    2
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 47.7% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    2.25 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.3 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    2.25 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 6 fewer CPU threads
    CPU threads
    2
    â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    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
    CPU base clock speed
    2 x 1.58 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x1.58 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    2x1.58 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • No multithreading support
    Multithreading
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
    This processor does not support multithreading, the average processor does. 74.2% of processors support multithreading.
  • 1 fewer threads per core
    Threads per core
    1
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <0 – >2.5
    This processor has fewer threads per core than the average processor (1 vs 2). The average processor offers 2 threads per core.
    1 vs 2
  • 37.5% lower bus transfer rate
    Bus transfer rate
    5 GT/s
    â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
    Market range: <4 GT/s – >19 GT/s
    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
  • No Turbo Boost
    Turbo Boost version
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
    This processor does not support Turbo Boost, the average processor does. 88.6% of processors support Turbo Boost.
  • 9 lower clock multiplier
    Clock multiplier
    19
    â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
    Market range: <16 – >38
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (19 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    19 vs 28
  • 83.3% larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    22 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    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
  • 70.8% smaller L1 cache
    L1 cache
    112 KB
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (112 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    112 KB vs 384 KB
  • 60% smaller L2 cache
    L2 cache
    1 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    1 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • Less advanced foundry
    Foundry
    Intel 22 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    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
  • 76.6% lower memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    10.7 GB/s
    â–¼ Worse than 100% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (10.7 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    10.7 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • 12 fewer PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (4 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    4 vs 16
  • 54.6% lower memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    1,333 MHz
    â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (1333 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    1,333 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    DDR3L-1333 MHz
    â–¼ Worse than 100% of models
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR3L-1333 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR3L-1333 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Older PCIe version
    PCIe version
    2.0
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    This processor supports an older PCIe version than the average processor (2 vs 3).
    2.0 vs 3.0
  • Older DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR3L
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3L vs DDR4).
    DDR3L vs DDR4
  • 93.8% less memory capacity
    Maximum memory capacity
    4 GB
    â–¼ Worse than 100% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (4 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    4 GB vs 64 GB
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    PCIe bifurcation modes
    x4
    â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
    x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4
  • 1 fewer memory channels
    Memory channels
    1
    â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
    Market range: <1 – >6
    This processor has fewer memory channels than the average processor (1 vs 2). The average processor supports 2 memory channels.
    1 vs 2
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode)
    â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
  • 83.3% fewer GPU execution units
    Integrated GPU execution units
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
    Market range: <6 – >64
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (4 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    4 vs 24
  • No configurable TDP
    Configurable TDP
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Celeron N2808

  • Extremely low power consumption (4.3W TDP) allows for fanless, compact laptop designs.
  • Adequate performance for very basic everyday tasks like web browsing, emails, and light office work.
  • Improved performance-per-clock over older Intel Atom predecessors like the N2800.
  • Supports hardware acceleration features such as Intel Quick Sync and Wireless Display.
  • Cost-effective solution for ultra-budget notebooks and educational devices.

What we don't like about Intel Celeron N2808

  • Poor performance in multitasking; struggles with having multiple tabs or programs open simultaneously.
  • Highly unsuitable for modern gaming, streaming, or heavyweight software.
  • Weak integrated graphics with only 4 Execution Units (EUs), making it slower than older HD Graphics 4000.
  • Lack of Hyper-Threading technology limits the efficiency of its two physical cores.
  • Outdated 22nm architecture and small cache (1MB L2) lead to frequent system slowdowns.
  • No upgrade path as the processor is typically soldered (BGA) to the motherboard.

Verdict

The Intel Celeron N2808 is an entry-level dual-core SoC from the Bay Trail-M platform, launched in late 2014 and based on the 22nm Silvermont architecture. It features a base clock speed of 1.58 GHz with a burst frequency up to 2.25 GHz, 1 MB of L2 cache, and integrated Intel HD Graphics (311–792 MHz). A primary advantage of this processor is its extremely low power consumption, with a TDP of just 4.5W and an SDP of 3W, making it ideal for fanless, ultra-portable notebooks and providing excellent battery efficiency for basic tasks like web browsing or office work. However, its main drawbacks include very limited performance for modern multitasking or complex software, a lack of Hyper-Threading, and integrated graphics that struggle with anything beyond very old or undemanding games.

Compare Intel Celeron N2808 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 N2808 and other processors

No results found