Ryzen 3 3300U vs Celeron N2920
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 3 3300U outperforms Celeron N2920 by a whopping 498% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron N2920 and Ryzen 3 3300U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2787 | 1507 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron | AMD Ryzen 3 |
| Power efficiency | 8.08 | 22.55 |
| Architecture codename | Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) | Picasso (2019−2022) |
| Release date | 1 December 2013 (10 years ago) | 6 January 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $107 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Celeron N2920 and Ryzen 3 3300U 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 1.86 GHz | 2.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Multiplier | no data | 21 |
| L1 cache | 56K (per core) | 384 KB |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 2 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 4 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 12 nm |
| Die size | no data | 209.78 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 4940 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron N2920 and Ryzen 3 3300U 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 | 1 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FCBGA1170 | FP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7.5 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N2920 and Ryzen 3 3300U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | XFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT |
| 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 |
| RST | - | no data |
Security technologies
Celeron N2920 and Ryzen 3 3300U technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | + | no data |
| Anti-Theft | - | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron N2920 and Ryzen 3 3300U 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 N2920 and Ryzen 3 3300U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| Maximum memory size | 8 GB | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 38.397 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel® HD Graphics for Intel Atom® Processor Z3700 Series | AMD Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) |
| Graphics max frequency | 844 MHz | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron N2920 and Ryzen 3 3300U integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 2 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron N2920 and Ryzen 3 3300U.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 4 | 12 |
| USB revision | 3.0 and 2.0 | no data |
| Total number of SATA ports | 2 | no data |
| Number of USB ports | 5 | no 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.62 | 3.71 |
| Recency | 1 December 2013 | 6 January 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7 Watt | 15 Watt |
Celeron N2920 has 114.3% lower power consumption.
Ryzen 3 3300U, on the other hand, has a 498.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 83.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Ryzen 3 3300U is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N2920 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron N2920 and Ryzen 3 3300U, 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.
