3020e vs Celeron B710

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron B710
2011
1 core / 1 thread, 35 Watt
0.07
3020e
2020
2 cores / 2 threads, 6 Watt
1.52
+2071%

3020e outperforms Celeron B710 by a whopping 2071% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron B710 and 3020e processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking34092144
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel CeleronAMD Raven Ridge (Ryzen 2000 APU)
Power efficiency0.1924.14
Architecture codenameSandy Bridge (2011−2013)Dali (Zen) (2020)
Release date19 June 2011 (13 years ago)4 August 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$70no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron B710 and 3020e 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 cores1 (Single-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads12
Base clock speed1.6 GHz1.2 GHz
Boost clock speed1.6 GHz2.6 GHz
Bus typeDMI 2.0no data
Bus rate4 × 5 GT/sno data
Multiplier16no data
L1 cache64K (per core)192 KB
L2 cache256K (per core)1 MB
L3 cache1.5 MB (shared)4 MB
Chip lithography32 nm14 nm
Die size131 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature100 °C105 °C
Number of transistors504 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on Celeron B710 and 3020e 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)no data
SocketPGA988,PPGA988FT5
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt6 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron B710 and 3020e. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, BMI2, ABM, FMA, ADX, SMEP, SMAP, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND, RDSEED, SHA, SME
AES-NI-+
FMA++
AVX-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access+no data
Demand Based Switching-no data
FDI+no data
Fast Memory Access+no data

Security technologies

Celeron B710 and 3020e technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-no data
EDB+no data
Anti-Theft-no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron B710 and 3020e are enumerated here.

VT-d-no data
VT-x+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron B710 and 3020e. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4
Maximum memory size16 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth21.335 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
Intel HD Graphics for 2nd Generation Intel ProcessorsAMD Radeon RX Vega 3 ( - 1000 MHz)
Graphics max frequency1 GHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron B710 and 3020e integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported2no data
eDP+no data
DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-
SDVO+no data
CRT+no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron B710 and 3020e.

PCIe version2.0no data
PCI Express lanes16no 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.


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.

Celeron B710 0.07
3020e 1.52
+2071%

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.

Celeron B710 106
3020e 2432
+2194%

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

Celeron B710 88.4
3020e 29
+205%

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

Celeron B710 0.1
3020e 1.1
+1733%

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

Celeron B710 4
3020e 13
+263%

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

Celeron B710 20
3020e 65
+222%

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Celeron B710 631
3020e 1232
+95.2%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.07 1.52
Integrated graphics card 0.77 2.99
Recency 19 June 2011 4 August 2020
Physical cores 1 2
Threads 1 2
Chip lithography 32 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 6 Watt

3020e has a 2071.4% higher aggregate performance score, 288.3% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 9 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 128.6% more advanced lithography process, and 483.3% lower power consumption.

The 3020e is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron B710 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron B710 and 3020e, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Celeron B710
Celeron B710
AMD 3020e
3020e

Other comparisons

We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


2.8 103 votes

Rate Celeron B710 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 817 votes

Rate 3020e on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron B710 or 3020e, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.