Celeron N3050 vs 3015Ce
Aggregate performance score
3015Ce outperforms Celeron N3050 by a whopping 257% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing 3015Ce and Celeron N3050 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2267 | 3041 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | AMD Raven Ridge (Ryzen 2000 APU) | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 20.82 | 5.84 |
| Architecture codename | Pollock (Zen) (2020) | Braswell (2015−2016) |
| Release date | 4 August 2020 (4 years ago) | 1 April 2015 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $107 |
Detailed specifications
3015Ce 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 | 4 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 1.2 GHz | 1.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.3 GHz | 2.16 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | IDI |
| L1 cache | 192 KB | no data |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 4 MB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | 90 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
Compatibility
Information on 3015Ce 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 | no data | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FT5 | FCBGA1170 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6 Watt | 6 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by 3015Ce and Celeron N3050. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, BMI2, ABM, FMA, ADX, SMEP, SMAP, SMT, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND, RDSEED, SHA, SME | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Smart Response | no data | - |
| GPIO | no data | + |
| Smart Connect | no data | - |
| HD Audio | no data | + |
| RST | no data | - |
Security technologies
3015Ce and Celeron N3050 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Boot | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| Identity Protection | - | + |
| OS Guard | no data | - |
| Anti-Theft | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by 3015Ce and Celeron N3050 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| VT-i | no data | - |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by 3015Ce and Celeron N3050. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 8 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | AMD Radeon RX Vega 3 ( - 600 MHz) | Intel HD Graphics for Intel Celeron Processor N3000 Series |
| Max video memory | no data | 8 GB |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Clear Video | no data | + |
| Clear Video HD | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 600 MHz |
| Execution Units | no data | 12 |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of 3015Ce and Celeron N3050 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
| eDP | no data | + |
| DisplayPort | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by 3015Ce and Celeron N3050 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | + |
| OpenGL | no data | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by 3015Ce and Celeron N3050.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 4 |
| USB revision | no data | 2.0/3.0 |
| Total number of SATA ports | no data | 2 |
| Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports | no data | 2 |
| Number of USB ports | no data | 5 |
| Integrated LAN | no data | - |
| UART | 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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.32 | 0.37 |
| Integrated graphics card | 2.98 | 0.77 |
| Recency | 4 August 2020 | 1 April 2015 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
3015Ce has a 256.8% higher aggregate performance score, 287% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 5 years, and 100% more threads.
The 3015Ce is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N3050 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between 3015Ce 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.
