N200 vs 3015e
Aggregate performance score
N200 outperforms 3015e by an impressive 90% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing 3015e and N200 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2090 | 1637 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | AMD Raven Ridge (Ryzen 2000 APU) | no data |
| Power efficiency | 26.22 | 49.75 |
| Architecture codename | Pollock (Zen) (2020) | no data |
| Release date | 4 August 2020 (4 years ago) | 1 January 2023 (2 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
3015e and N200 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) | no data |
| Threads | 4 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 1.2 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 2.3 GHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 192 KB | no data |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | no data |
| L3 cache | 4 MB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on 3015e and N200 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.
| Socket | FT5 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6 Watt | 6 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by 3015e and N200. 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 | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by 3015e and N200. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon RX Vega 3 ( - 600 MHz) | 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 | 1.65 | 3.13 |
| Recency | 4 August 2020 | 1 January 2023 |
N200 has a 89.7% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 2 years.
The N200 is our recommended choice as it beats the 3015e in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between 3015e and N200, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
