Celeron N3050 vs Athlon 64 X2 4200+
Primary details
Comparing Athlon 64 X2 4200+ and Celeron N3050 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Celeron |
| Architecture codename | Manchester (2005−2006) | Braswell (2015−2016) |
| Release date | December 2006 (17 years ago) | 1 April 2015 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $309 | $107 |
Detailed specifications
Athlon 64 X2 4200+ and Celeron N3050 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 1.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 2.16 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | IDI |
| L1 cache | 256K | no data |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 220 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 90 °C |
| Number of transistors | 154 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon 64 X2 4200+ and Celeron N3050 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | 939 | FCBGA1170 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 89 Watt | 6 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 64 X2 4200+ and Celeron N3050. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Smart Response | no data | - |
| GPIO | no data | + |
| Smart Connect | no data | - |
| HD Audio | no data | + |
| RST | no data | - |
Security technologies
Athlon 64 X2 4200+ and Celeron N3050 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Boot | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| Identity Protection | - | + |
| OS Guard | no data | - |
| Anti-Theft | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon 64 X2 4200+ and Celeron N3050 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| VT-i | no data | - |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon 64 X2 4200+ and Celeron N3050. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 8 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel® HD Graphics for Intel® Celeron® Processor N3000 Series |
| Max video memory | no data | 8 GB |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Clear Video | no data | + |
| Clear Video HD | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 600 MHz |
| Execution Units | no data | 12 |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Athlon 64 X2 4200+ and Celeron N3050 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
| eDP | no data | + |
| DisplayPort | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Athlon 64 X2 4200+ and Celeron N3050 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | + |
| OpenGL | no data | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon 64 X2 4200+ and Celeron N3050.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 4 |
| USB revision | no data | 2.0/3.0 |
| Total number of SATA ports | no data | 2 |
| Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports | no data | 2 |
| Number of USB ports | no data | 5 |
| Integrated LAN | no data | - |
| UART | no data | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Pros & cons summary
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 89 Watt | 6 Watt |
Celeron N3050 has a 542.9% more advanced lithography process, and 1383.3% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Athlon 64 X2 4200+ and Celeron N3050. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Athlon 64 X2 4200+ is a desktop processor while Celeron N3050 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 64 X2 4200+ and Celeron N3050, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
