Ryzen 3 3100 vs Celeron M 390

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron M 390
1 core / 1 thread, 21 Watt
0.16
Ryzen 3 3100
2020
4 cores / 8 threads, 65 Watt
6.76
+4125%

Ryzen 3 3100 outperforms Celeron M 390 by a whopping 4125% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking34751133
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data33.70
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesCeleron MMatisse (Ryzen 3000 Desktop)
Power efficiency0.324.41
DesignerIntelAMD
Manufacturerno dataTSMC
Architecture codenameDothan (2004−2005)Matisse (Zen 2) (2019−2020)
Release dateno data24 April 2020 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Detailed specifications

Celeron M 390 and Ryzen 3 3100 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)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads18
Base clock speed1.7 GHz3.6 GHz
Boost clock speed1.7 GHz3.9 GHz
Bus rate400 MHzno data
L1 cacheno data96K (per core)
L2 cacheno data512K (per core)
L3 cache1 MB L2 KB16 MB (shared)
Chip lithography90 nm7 nm
Die sizeno data74 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data95 °C
Number of transistorsno data3,800 million
64 bit support-+
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplier-+
VID voltage range1.004V-1.292Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Celeron M 390 and Ryzen 3 3100 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 configurationno data1
SocketPPGA478, H-PBGA479AM4
Power consumption (TDP)21 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 390 and Ryzen 3 3100. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataMMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, BMI2, ABM, FMA, ADX, SMEP, SMAP, SMT, 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
Demand Based Switching-no data
PAE32 Bitno data
FSB parity-no data
Precision Boost 2no data+

Security technologies

Celeron M 390 and Ryzen 3 3100 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-no data
EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M 390 and Ryzen 3 3100 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-x-no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 390 and Ryzen 3 3100. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR4

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron M 390 and Ryzen 3 3100.

PCIe versionno data4.0
PCI Express lanesno data16

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.

Celeron M 390 0.16
Ryzen 3 3100 6.76
+4125%

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 M 390 102
Ryzen 3 3100 6.58
+1450%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.16 6.76
Physical cores 1 4
Threads 1 8
Chip lithography 90 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 21 Watt 65 Watt

Celeron M 390 has 209.5% lower power consumption.

Ryzen 3 3100, on the other hand, has a 4125% higher aggregate performance score, 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 1185.7% more advanced lithography process.

The AMD Ryzen 3 3100 is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Celeron M 390 in performance tests.

Be aware that Celeron M 390 is a notebook processor while Ryzen 3 3100 is a desktop one.

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 M 390
Celeron M 390
AMD Ryzen 3 3100
Ryzen 3 3100

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.


2.6 7 votes

Rate Celeron M 390 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 1845 votes

Rate Ryzen 3 3100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about processors Celeron M 390 and Ryzen 3 3100, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report bugs or inaccuracies on the site.