Ryzen 3 3300X vs Celeron M 410
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 410 and Ryzen 3 3300X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 890 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 30.97 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Celeron M | no data |
| Power efficiency | no data | 12.30 |
| Architecture codename | Yonah (2005−2006) | Matisse (Zen 2) (2019−2020) |
| Release date | no data (2024 years ago) | 24 April 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $120 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 410 and Ryzen 3 3300X 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 | 1 (Single-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 1.46 GHz | 3.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.46 GHz | 4.3 GHz |
| Bus rate | 533 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 1 MB L2 KB | 16 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 7 nm |
| Die size | no data | 74 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 95 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 3,800 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
| VID voltage range | 1.0V-1.3V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 410 and Ryzen 3 3300X 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 | no data | 1 |
| Socket | PPGA478 | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 27 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 410 and Ryzen 3 3300X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | 86x MMX(+), SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSE4A,-64, AMD-V, AES, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, SHA, Precision Boost 2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| 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 |
| PAE | 32 Bit | no data |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Celeron M 410 and Ryzen 3 3300X 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 410 and Ryzen 3 3300X are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-x | - | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 410 and Ryzen 3 3300X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4-3200 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron M 410 and Ryzen 3 3300X.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 1 | 4 |
| Threads | 1 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 27 Watt | 65 Watt |
Celeron M 410 has 140.7% lower power consumption.
Ryzen 3 3300X, on the other hand, has 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 828.6% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Celeron M 410 and Ryzen 3 3300X. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Celeron M 410 is a notebook processor while Ryzen 3 3300X is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 410 and Ryzen 3 3300X, 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.
