3015e vs Celeron B840

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron B840
2011
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.60
3015e
2020
2 cores / 4 threads, 6 Watt
1.67
+178%

3015e outperforms Celeron B840 by a whopping 178% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron B840 and 3015e processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking28072072
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel CeleronAMD Raven Ridge (Ryzen 2000 APU)
Power efficiency1.6326.52
Architecture codenameSandy Bridge (2011−2013)Pollock (Zen) (2020)
Release date1 July 2011 (13 years ago)4 August 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$86no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron B840 and 3015e 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 cores2 (Dual-core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads24
Base clock speedno data1.2 GHz
Boost clock speed1.9 GHz2.3 GHz
Bus typeDMI 2.0no data
Bus rate4 × 5 GT/sno data
Multiplier19no data
L1 cache64K (per core)192 KB
L2 cache256K (per core)1 MB
L3 cache2 MB (shared)4 MB
Chip lithography32 nm14 nm
Die size131 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature100 °C105 °C
Number of transistors504 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron B840 and 3015e 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)no data
SocketG2 (988B)FT5
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt6 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron B840 and 3015e. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataMMX, 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
AES-NI-+
FMA++
AVX-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-

Security technologies

Celeron B840 and 3015e technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron B840 and 3015e are enumerated here.

VT-x+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron B840 and 3015e. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4
Maximum memory size16 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth21.335 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (650 - 950 MHz)AMD Radeon RX Vega 3 ( - 600 MHz)

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.

Celeron B840 0.60
3015e 1.67
+178%

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.

Celeron B840 967
3015e 2677
+177%

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.

Celeron B840 328
3015e 536
+63.4%

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.

Celeron B840 597
3015e 973
+63%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.60 1.67
Integrated graphics card 0.34 2.99
Recency 1 July 2011 4 August 2020
Threads 2 4
Chip lithography 32 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 6 Watt

3015e has a 178.3% higher aggregate performance score, 779.4% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 9 years, 100% more threads, a 128.6% more advanced lithography process, and 483.3% lower power consumption.

The 3015e is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron B840 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron B840 and 3015e, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Celeron B840
Celeron B840
AMD 3015e
3015e

Other comparisons

We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


1.9 17 votes

Rate Celeron B840 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.6 30 votes

Rate 3015e on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron B840 or 3015e, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.