Ryzen 5 3600 vs Celeron N2940
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 5 3600 outperforms Celeron N2940 by a whopping 1592% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron N2940 and Ryzen 5 3600 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2740 | 692 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 9 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 21.94 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Celeron | AMD Ryzen 5 |
| Power efficiency | 8.92 | 16.26 |
| Architecture codename | Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) | Matisse (2019−2020) |
| Release date | 22 May 2014 (10 years ago) | 7 July 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron N2940 and Ryzen 5 3600 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) | 6 (Hexa-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 12 |
| Base clock speed | 1.83 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.25 GHz | 4.2 GHz |
| L1 cache | 56K (per core) | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 32 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 7 nm, 12 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron N2940 and Ryzen 5 3600 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 | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7.5 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N2940 and Ryzen 5 3600. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| 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 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Celeron N2940 and Ryzen 5 3600 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 N2940 and Ryzen 5 3600 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 N2940 and Ryzen 5 3600. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| Maximum memory size | 8 GB | 128 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 21.32 GB/s | 51.196 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel® HD Graphics for Intel Atom® Processor Z3700 Series | - |
| Quick Sync Video | + | - |
| Clear Video HD | - | - |
| Graphics max frequency | 854 MHz | - |
| InTru 3D | - | - |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron N2940 and Ryzen 5 3600 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 2 | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron N2940 and Ryzen 5 3600.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 4 | no data |
| 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.
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.66 | 11.17 |
| Recency | 22 May 2014 | 7 July 2019 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 6 |
| Threads | 4 | 12 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7 Watt | 65 Watt |
Celeron N2940 has 828.6% lower power consumption.
Ryzen 5 3600, on the other hand, has a 1592.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, 50% more physical cores and 200% more threads, and a 214.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Ryzen 5 3600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N2940 in performance tests.
Be aware that Celeron N2940 is a notebook processor while Ryzen 5 3600 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron N2940 and Ryzen 5 3600, 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.
