Ryzen 3 3300X vs Celeron N2840

Primary details

Comparing Celeron N2840 and Ryzen 3 3300X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the rankingnot rated890
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data30.97
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesIntel Celeronno data
Power efficiencyno data12.30
Architecture codenameBay Trail-M (2013−2014)Matisse (Zen 2) (2019−2020)
Release date22 May 2014 (10 years ago)24 April 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$120

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron N2840 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 cores2 (Dual-core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads28
Base clock speed2.16 GHz3.8 GHz
Boost clock speed2.58 GHz4.3 GHz
L1 cache56K (per core)96K (per core)
L2 cache512K (per core)512K (per core)
L3 cache0 KB16 MB (shared)
Chip lithography22 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-+

Compatibility

Information on Celeron N2840 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 configuration11
SocketFCBGA1170AM4
Power consumption (TDP)7.5 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N2840 and Ryzen 3 3300X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno data86x 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
Smart Connect+no data
Precision Boost 2no data+

Security technologies

Celeron N2840 and Ryzen 3 3300X technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDB+no data
Secure Key+no data
Anti-Theft-no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron N2840 and Ryzen 3 3300X are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d-no data
VT-x+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron N2840 and Ryzen 3 3300X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4-3200
Maximum memory size8 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth21.32 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel® HD Graphics for Intel Atom® Processor Z3700 Seriesno data
Quick Sync Video+-
Graphics max frequency792 MHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron N2840 and Ryzen 3 3300X integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported2no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron N2840 and Ryzen 3 3300X.

PCIe version2.04.0
PCI Express lanes416
USB revision3.0 and 2.0no data
Total number of SATA ports2no data
Number of USB ports5no 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.



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 N2840 587
Ryzen 3 3300X 13425
+2187%

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Celeron N2840 178
Ryzen 3 3300X 1711
+861%

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Celeron N2840 297
Ryzen 3 3300X 5940
+1900%

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.

Celeron N2840 1331
Ryzen 3 3300X 5856
+340%

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

Celeron N2840 2533
Ryzen 3 3300X 25416
+903%

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

Celeron N2840 1
Ryzen 3 3300X 12
+1228%

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

Celeron N2840 76
Ryzen 3 3300X 1071
+1309%

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.

Celeron N2840 38
Ryzen 3 3300X 195
+413%

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

Celeron N2840 0.44
Ryzen 3 3300X 2.28
+418%

Pros & cons summary


Recency 22 May 2014 24 April 2020
Physical cores 2 4
Threads 2 8
Chip lithography 22 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 7 Watt 65 Watt

Celeron N2840 has 828.6% lower power consumption.

Ryzen 3 3300X, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 214.3% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Celeron N2840 and Ryzen 3 3300X. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Celeron N2840 is a notebook processor while Ryzen 3 3300X is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron N2840 and Ryzen 3 3300X, 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 N2840
Celeron N2840
AMD Ryzen 3 3300X
Ryzen 3 3300X

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.

Community ratings

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


2.7 632 votes

Rate Celeron N2840 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 1056 votes

Rate Ryzen 3 3300X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron N2840 or Ryzen 3 3300X, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.