Athlon 3000G vs Celeron 1000M
Aggregate performance score
Athlon 3000G outperforms Celeron 1000M by a whopping 321% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron 1000M and Athlon 3000G processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2746 | 1681 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 5.27 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Celeron | AMD Athlon |
| Power efficiency | 1.81 | 7.62 |
| Architecture codename | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) | Zen+ (2018−2019) |
| Release date | 20 January 2013 (11 years ago) | 21 November 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $86 | $49 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron 1000M and Athlon 3000G 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 | 2 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.8 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Bus rate | 5 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | no data | 35 |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256K (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 2 MB (shared) | 4 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 118 mm2 | 209.78 mm2? |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 105 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron 1000M and Athlon 3000G 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 | G2 (988B) | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 1000M and Athlon 3000G. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| PowerNow | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Celeron 1000M and Athlon 3000G technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 1000M and Athlon 3000G are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 1000M and Athlon 3000G. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 64 GB? |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 42.671 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) (650 - 1000 MHz) | AMD Radeon Vega 3 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 1000M and Athlon 3000G.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 6 |
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.67 | 2.82 |
| Integrated graphics card | 0.63 | 2.98 |
| Recency | 20 January 2013 | 21 November 2019 |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 14 nm |
Athlon 3000G has a 320.9% higher aggregate performance score, 373% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 6 years, 100% more threads, and a 57.1% more advanced lithography process.
The Athlon 3000G is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 1000M in performance tests.
Be aware that Celeron 1000M is a notebook processor while Athlon 3000G is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 1000M and Athlon 3000G, 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.
