Celeron 3215U vs Athlon II X2 250e
Aggregate performance score
Athlon II X2 250e outperforms Celeron 3215U by a small 7% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Athlon II X2 250e and Celeron 3215U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2675 | 2720 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.04 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 1.53 | 4.27 |
| Architecture codename | Regor (2009−2013) | Broadwell (2015−2019) |
| Release date | 21 September 2010 (14 years ago) | 1 June 2015 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $77 | $107 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Athlon II X2 250e and Celeron 3215U 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 | 3 GHz | 1.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 1.7 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 5 GT/s |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 2 MB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 117 mm2 | 82 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | 410 million | 1300 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon II X2 250e and Celeron 3215U 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 |
| Socket | AM3 | FCBGA1168 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon II X2 250e and Celeron 3215U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | + |
| Smart Response | no data | - |
| FDI | no data | + |
| Fast Memory Access | no data | + |
Security technologies
Athlon II X2 250e and Celeron 3215U technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| Identity Protection | - | + |
| OS Guard | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon II X2 250e and Celeron 3215U are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon II X2 250e and Celeron 3215U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 16 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 25.6 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel® HD Graphics for 5th Generation Intel® Processors |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Clear Video | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 850 MHz |
| InTru 3D | no data | + |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Athlon II X2 250e and Celeron 3215U integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
| eDP | no data | + |
| DisplayPort | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Athlon II X2 250e and Celeron 3215U integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 11.2/12 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon II X2 250e and Celeron 3215U.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 12 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.74 | 0.69 |
| Recency | 21 September 2010 | 1 June 2015 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 15 Watt |
Athlon II X2 250e has a 7.2% higher aggregate performance score.
Celeron 3215U, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Athlon II X2 250e and Celeron 3215U.
Note that Athlon II X2 250e is a desktop processor while Celeron 3215U is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon II X2 250e and Celeron 3215U, 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.
