i3-N305 vs Celeron M 550
Aggregate performance score
Core i3-N305 outperforms Celeron M 550 by a whopping 2062% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 550 and Core i3-N305 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3109 | 1065 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Celeron M | no data |
| Power efficiency | 0.91 | 39.56 |
| Architecture codename | Merom (2006−2008) | Alder Lake-N (2023) |
| Release date | no data (2024 years ago) | 3 January 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $309 |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 550 and Core i3-N305 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) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 0.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2 GHz | 3.8 GHz |
| Bus rate | 533 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 96 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 2 MB (per module) |
| L3 cache | no data | 6 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | Intel 7 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 550 and Core i3-N305 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 | no data | FCBGA1264 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 550 and Core i3-N305. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| FMA | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| GPIO | no data | + |
Security technologies
Celeron M 550 and Core i3-N305 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M 550 and Core i3-N305 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 550 and Core i3-N305. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4, DDR5 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 16 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 1 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel UHD Graphics |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1.25 GHz |
| Execution Units | no data | 32 |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron M 550 and Core i3-N305 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Celeron M 550 and Core i3-N305 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| 4K resolution support | no data | + |
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | no data | 4096 x 2160@60Hz |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | no data | 4096 x 2160@60Hz |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Celeron M 550 and Core i3-N305 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 12.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron M 550 and Core i3-N305.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 9 |
| USB revision | no data | 2.0/3.2 |
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.
Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core
Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.
3DMark06 CPU
3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.29 | 6.27 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 8 |
| Threads | 1 | 8 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 15 Watt |
i3-N305 has a 2062.1% higher aggregate performance score, 700% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and 100% lower power consumption.
The Core i3-N305 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M 550 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 550 and Core i3-N305, 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.
