Celeron N3050 vs N4000C
Aggregate performance score
Celeron N4000C outperforms Celeron N3050 by a whopping 141% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron N4000C and Celeron N3050 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2545 | 3027 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 14.04 | no data |
| Architecture codename | no data | Braswell (2015−2016) |
| Release date | 1 April 2019 (5 years ago) | 1 April 2015 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $107 |
Detailed specifications
Celeron N4000C and Celeron N3050 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 1.1 GHz | 1.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.6 GHz | 2.16 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | IDI |
| L2 cache | no data | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 4 MB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 deg C | 90 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron N4000C and Celeron N3050 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 | FCBGA1090 | FCBGA1170 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6 Watt | 6 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N4000C and Celeron N3050. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.2 | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| vPro | - | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Speed Shift | - | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | - |
| Idle States | + | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | + |
| Smart Response | - | - |
| GPIO | + | + |
| Smart Connect | no data | - |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | - | no data |
| HD Audio | no data | + |
| RST | no data | - |
Security technologies
Celeron N4000C and Celeron N3050 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Boot | no data | + |
| Secure Key | + | + |
| MPX | + | - |
| Identity Protection | + | + |
| SGX | Yes with Intel® ME | no data |
| OS Guard | + | - |
| Anti-Theft | - | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron N4000C and Celeron N3050 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | - |
| VT-x | + | + |
| VT-i | no data | - |
| EPT | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron N4000C and Celeron N3050. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4/LPDDR4 up to 2400 MT/s | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel UHD Graphics 600 | Intel® HD Graphics for Intel® Celeron® Processor N3000 Series |
| Max video memory | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Quick Sync Video | + | + |
| Clear Video | no data | + |
| Clear Video HD | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | 650 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Execution Units | 12 | 12 |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron N4000C and Celeron N3050 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 3 | 3 |
| eDP | + | + |
| DisplayPort | + | + |
| HDMI | + | + |
| MIPI-DSI | + | no data |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Celeron N4000C and Celeron N3050 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| 4K resolution support | + | no data |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Celeron N4000C and Celeron N3050 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | 12 | + |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron N4000C and Celeron N3050.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 6 | 4 |
| USB revision | 2.0/3.0 | 2.0/3.0 |
| Total number of SATA ports | 2 | 2 |
| Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports | 2 | 2 |
| Number of USB ports | 8 | 5 |
| Integrated LAN | - | - |
| UART | + | + |
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.89 | 0.37 |
| Recency | 1 April 2019 | 1 April 2015 |
Celeron N4000C has a 140.5% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 4 years.
The Celeron N4000C is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N3050 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron N4000C and Celeron N3050, 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.
