Celeron N3050 vs Atom E3845
Aggregate performance score
Atom E3845 outperforms Celeron N3050 by an impressive 78% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Atom E3845 and Celeron N3050 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2741 | 3026 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Atom | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 6.25 | 5.84 |
| Architecture codename | Bay Trail-I (2013) | Braswell (2015−2016) |
| Release date | 8 October 2013 (11 years ago) | 1 April 2015 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $107 |
Detailed specifications
Atom E3845 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 1.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.91 GHz | 2.16 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | IDI |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 14 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 90 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Atom E3845 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 | Intel BGA1170 | FCBGA1170 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 6 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Atom E3845 and Celeron N3050. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| 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
Atom E3845 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 Atom E3845 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 Atom E3845 and Celeron N3050. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | 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 | Intel HD Graphics | 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 Atom E3845 and Celeron N3050 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
| eDP | no data | + |
| DisplayPort | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Atom E3845 and Celeron N3050 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | + |
| OpenGL | no data | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Atom E3845 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 | 0.66 | 0.37 |
| Recency | 8 October 2013 | 1 April 2015 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 6 Watt |
Atom E3845 has a 78.4% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Celeron N3050, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 57.1% more advanced lithography process, and 66.7% lower power consumption.
The Atom E3845 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N3050 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Atom E3845 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.
