In terms of processing power only (ignoring GPU performance), why is the CPUMark performance of the Celeron 2955U (2-core, 1.4GHz) relatively close to the Celeron N3150 (4-core, 1.6GHz)?
Intel Celeron 2955U Average CPU Mark: 1456 Intel Celeron N3150 Average CPU Mark: 1522
I would expect that the N3150 has nearly double the processing power of N2955U given that it has twice the cores, and higher clock. Both are based on Celeron architectures (Haswell versus Braswell.
2995U Clockspeed: 1.4 GHz, No of Cores: 2, Max TDP: 15 W
vs
3150 Clockspeed: 1.6 GHz, Turbo Speed: 2.1 GHz, No of Cores: 4, Max TDP: 6 W
Note the TDPs, the 3150 uses 40% of the power, its a low power chip ideal for tablets and ultra-portables.
1456/15 = 97 points per watt
1522/6 = 253 points per watt
So performance is similar, but efficiency is through the roof. This is what Intel have focused on a lot recently bringing their process size down and down.
You're comparing an ULV haswell (which is a core architecture processor) to a braswell (atom architecture) processor.
At some point, intel started transitioning the celeron brand from the extreme low end of the mainstream core line, to the very different atom line
The braswell is a 6w processor, the haswell is a 15w processor. The latter is probably faster in most cases, despite the lower clockspeed. Despite the name, they're apples and oranges,different designs meant for different uses, that just happen to be soldered in and having the same name.
In addition, things like CPUmark are an abstraction, You're likely to get better performance on the older haswell, but the braswell is much more efficient. The haswell probably also has support for more ram and so on.
