Celeron N3350 vs E2-3800

#ad
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregated performance score

E2-3800
2013
4 cores / 4 threads
0.75
+4.2%
Celeron N3350
2016
2 cores / 2 threads
0.72

E2-3800 outperforms Celeron N3350 by 4% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

General info

Comparing E2-3800 and Celeron N3350 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking25322558
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD A-SeriesIntel Celeron
Architecture codenameKabini (2013−2014)Apollo Lake (2016)
Release date23 May 2013 (10 years old)30 August 2016 (7 years old)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$24
Current price$107 $251 (10.5x MSRP)

Technical specs

E2-3800 and Celeron N3350 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)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speedno data1.1 GHz
Boost clock speed1.3 GHz2.4 GHz
L1 cache128 KBno data
L2 cache2048 KB1 MB
L3 cacheno data0 KB
Chip lithography28 nm14 nm
Die size107 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature90 °C105 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)90 °Cno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplierNoNo

Compatibility

Information on E2-3800 and Celeron N3350 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
SocketFT3FCBGA1296
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt6 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by E2-3800 and Celeron N3350. 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, AVX, DDR3L-1600no data
AES-NI++
FMAFMA4no data
AVX+no data
PowerTune-no data
TrueAudio-no data
PowerNow+no data
PowerGating+no data
Out-of-band client management-no data
VirusProtect+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoringno data+
SIPPno data-
Smart Responseno data-
GPIOno data+
Smart Connectno data-
Statusno dataLaunched
HD Audiono data+
RSTno data-

Security technologies

E2-3800 and Celeron N3350 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

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

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by E2-3800 and Celeron N3350 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+no data
VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+
VT-ino data-
EPTno data+
IOMMU 2.0+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by E2-3800 and Celeron N3350. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3-1600DDR3, DDR3, DDR4
Maximum memory sizeno data8 GB
Max memory channels12
ECC memory supportno data-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon HD 8280Intel HD Graphics 500
Number of pipelines128no data
Max video memoryno data8 GB
Quick Sync Videono data+
Clear Videono data+
Clear Video HDno data+
Enduro+no data
Switchable graphics1no data
UVD+no data
VCE+no data
Graphics max frequencyno data650 MHz
Execution Unitsno data12

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of E2-3800 and Celeron N3350 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data3
eDPno data+
DisplayPort++
HDMI++
MIPI-DSIno data+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by E2-3800 and Celeron N3350 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 12+
OpenGLno data+
Vulkan1no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by E2-3800 and Celeron N3350.

PCIe version2.02.0
PCI Express lanes46
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 data8
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 0.75
+4.2%
Celeron N3350 0.72

E2-3800 outperforms Celeron N3350 by 4% based on our aggregated benchmark results.


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.

Benchmark coverage: 68%

E2-3800 1148
+3.9%
Celeron N3350 1105

E2-3800 outperforms Celeron N3350 by 4% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

E2-3800 154
Celeron N3350 252
+63.6%

Celeron N3350 outperforms E2-3800 by 64% in GeekBench 5 Single-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.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

E2-3800 485
+17.1%
Celeron N3350 414

E2-3800 outperforms Celeron N3350 by 17% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 20%

E2-3800 2295
+54%
Celeron N3350 1490

E2-3800 outperforms Celeron N3350 by 54% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

E2-3800 3575
+34.7%
Celeron N3350 2654

E2-3800 outperforms Celeron N3350 by 35% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 18%

E2-3800 42.64
+6.7%
Celeron N3350 45.5

Celeron N3350 outperforms E2-3800 by 7% in wPrime 32.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

E2-3800 1
+15.3%
Celeron N3350 1

E2-3800 outperforms Celeron N3350 by 15% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

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

Benchmark coverage: 15%

E2-3800 103
+21.2%
Celeron N3350 85

E2-3800 outperforms Celeron N3350 by 21% in Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 15%

E2-3800 28
Celeron N3350 46
+64.3%

Celeron N3350 outperforms E2-3800 by 64% in Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

E2-3800 0.32
Celeron N3350 0.59
+84.4%

Celeron N3350 outperforms E2-3800 by 84% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

E2-3800 0.8
+21.5%
Celeron N3350 0.7

E2-3800 outperforms Celeron N3350 by 22% in TrueCrypt AES.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

E2-3800 963
+56.3%
Celeron N3350 616

E2-3800 outperforms Celeron N3350 by 56% in WinRAR 4.0.

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.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

E2-3800 36
+10.2%
Celeron N3350 33

E2-3800 outperforms Celeron N3350 by 10% in x264 encoding pass 1.

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.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

E2-3800 8
+21%
Celeron N3350 6

E2-3800 outperforms Celeron N3350 by 21% in x264 encoding pass 2.

Geekbench 3 32-bit single-core

Benchmark coverage: 5%

E2-3800 777
Celeron N3350 1328
+70.8%

Celeron N3350 outperforms E2-3800 by 71% in Geekbench 3 32-bit single-core.

Geekbench 3 32-bit multi-core

Benchmark coverage: 5%

E2-3800 2441
Celeron N3350 2468
+1.1%

Celeron N3350 outperforms E2-3800 by 1% in Geekbench 3 32-bit multi-core.

Gaming performance

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 0.75 0.72
Integrated graphics card 0.67 0.74
Recency 23 May 2013 30 August 2016
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 6 Watt

We couldn't decide between E2-3800 and Celeron N3350. The differences in performance seem too small.


Should you still have questions on choice between E2-3800 and Celeron N3350, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote

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 N3350
Celeron N3350

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.

User Ratings

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


3.4 65 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 869 votes

Rate Intel Celeron N3350 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

Here you can ask a question about E2-3800 or Celeron N3350, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.