Celeron N3160 vs E2-3800

VS

Aggregate performance score

E2-3800
2013
4 cores / 4 threads, 15 Watt
0.73
Celeron N3160
2016
4 cores / 4 threads, 6 Watt
0.76
+4.1%

Celeron N3160 outperforms E2-3800 by a minimal 4% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing E2-3800 and Celeron N3160 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking26932661
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD A-SeriesIntel Celeron
Power efficiency4.6117.99
Architecture codenameKabini (2013−2014)Braswell (2015−2016)
Release date23 May 2013 (11 years ago)15 January 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$107

Detailed specifications

E2-3800 and Celeron N3160 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads44
Base clock speedno data1.6 GHz
Boost clock speed1.3 GHz2.24 GHz
Bus typeno dataIDI
L1 cache128 KBno data
L2 cache2048 KB2 MB
L3 cacheno data0 KB
Chip lithography28 nm14 nm
Die size107 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature90 °C90 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)90 °Cno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on E2-3800 and Celeron N3160 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 (Uniprocessor)
SocketFT3FCBGA1170
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt6 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by E2-3800 and Celeron N3160. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensions86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVXno data
AES-NI++
FMAFMA4-
AVX+-
PowerNow+-
PowerGating+-
VirusProtect+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Smart Responseno data-
GPIOno data+
Smart Connectno data-
HD Audiono data+
RSTno data-

Security technologies

E2-3800 and Celeron N3160 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+
Secure Bootno data+
Secure Keyno data+
Identity Protection-+
OS Guardno data-
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by E2-3800 and Celeron N3160 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data-
VT-xno data+
VT-ino data-
EPTno data+
IOMMU 2.0+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by E2-3800 and Celeron N3160. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3-1600DDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data8 GB
Max memory channels12

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon HD 8280Intel HD Graphics (Braswell) (320 - 640 MHz)
จำนวนพาธไลน์128no data
Max video memoryno data8 GB
Quick Sync Video-+
Clear Videono data+
Clear Video HDno data+
Enduro+-
Switchable graphics+-
UVD+-
VCE+-
Graphics max frequencyno data640 MHz
Execution Unitsno data12

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of E2-3800 and Celeron N3160 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data3
eDPno data+
DisplayPort++
HDMI++

Graphics API support

APIs supported by E2-3800 and Celeron N3160 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 12+
OpenGLno data+
Vulkan+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by E2-3800 and Celeron N3160.

PCIe version2.02.0
PCI Express lanes44
USB revisionno data2.0/3.0
Total number of SATA portsno data2
Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Portsno data2
Number of USB portsno data5
Integrated LANno data-
UARTno 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.

E2-3800 0.73
Celeron N3160 0.76
+4.1%

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.

E2-3800 1152
Celeron N3160 1200
+4.2%

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.

E2-3800 136
Celeron N3160 170
+25%

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.

E2-3800 389
Celeron N3160 517
+32.9%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.73 0.76
Integrated graphics card 0.67 0.62
Recency 23 May 2013 15 January 2016
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 6 Watt

E2-3800 has 8.1% faster integrated GPU.

Celeron N3160, on the other hand, has a 4.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 150% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between E2-3800 and Celeron N3160.


Should you still have questions on choice between E2-3800 and Celeron N3160, 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.


AMD E2-3800
E2-3800
Intel Celeron N3160
Celeron N3160

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.


3.2 104 votes

Rate E2-3800 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.6 195 votes

Rate Celeron N3160 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about E2-3800 or Celeron N3160, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.