Ryzen 5 3600 vs Celeron 1020E
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 5 3600 outperforms Celeron 1020E by a whopping 1160% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron 1020E and Ryzen 5 3600 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2541 | 692 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 9 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 23.26 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Celeron | AMD Ryzen 5 |
| Power efficiency | 2.40 | 16.25 |
| Architecture codename | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) | Matisse (2019−2020) |
| Release date | 20 January 2013 (11 years ago) | 7 July 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron 1020E and Ryzen 5 3600 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) | 6 (Hexa-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 12 |
| Base clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 4.2 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 384 KB |
| L2 cache | 256K (per core) | 3 MB |
| L3 cache | 2 MB (shared) | 32 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 7 nm, 12 nm |
| Die size | 118 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °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 1020E and Ryzen 5 3600 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 | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 1020E and Ryzen 5 3600. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Celeron 1020E and Ryzen 5 3600 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 1020E and Ryzen 5 3600 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 1020E and Ryzen 5 3600. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 128 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 51.196 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) | - |
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 | 0.89 | 11.21 |
| Recency | 20 January 2013 | 7 July 2019 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 6 |
| Threads | 2 | 12 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 65 Watt |
Celeron 1020E has 85.7% lower power consumption.
Ryzen 5 3600, on the other hand, has a 1159.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, 200% more physical cores and 500% more threads, and a 214.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Ryzen 5 3600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 1020E in performance tests.
Be aware that Celeron 1020E is a notebook processor while Ryzen 5 3600 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 1020E and Ryzen 5 3600, 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.
