i3-N300 vs Celeron G1620
Aggregate performance score
Core i3-N300 outperforms Celeron G1620 by a whopping 440% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron G1620 and Core i3-N300 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2479 | 1178 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.05 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Power efficiency | 1.70 | 72.28 |
| Architecture codename | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) | Alder Lake-N (2023) |
| Release date | 3 December 2012 (12 years ago) | 3 January 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $208 | $309 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron G1620 and Core i3-N300 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) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 2.7 GHz | 0.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.7 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| Bus rate | 5 GT/s | no data |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 2 MB (per module) |
| L3 cache | 2 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 10 nm |
| Die size | 94 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 65 °C | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron G1620 and Core i3-N300 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 |
| Socket | FCLGA1155 | Intel BGA 1264 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 7 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron G1620 and Core i3-N300. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 | no data |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| My WiFi | - | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
Security technologies
Celeron G1620 and Core i3-N300 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | + |
| EDB | + | no data |
| Secure Key | - | no data |
| Anti-Theft | - | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron G1620 and Core i3-N300 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | - | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron G1620 and Core i3-N300. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4, DDR5 4800 MHz Single-channel |
| Maximum memory size | 32 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 21 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Intel HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel Processors | Intel UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) ( - 1250 MHz) |
| Graphics max frequency | 1.05 GHz | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron G1620 and Core i3-N300 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 3 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron G1620 and Core i3-N300.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 9 |
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 | 0.99 | 5.35 |
| Integrated graphics card | 0.77 | 3.29 |
| Recency | 3 December 2012 | 3 January 2023 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 8 |
| Threads | 2 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 7 Watt |
i3-N300 has a 440.4% higher aggregate performance score, 327.3% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 10 years, 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, a 120% more advanced lithography process, and 685.7% lower power consumption.
The Core i3-N300 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron G1620 in performance tests.
Note that Celeron G1620 is a desktop processor while Core i3-N300 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron G1620 and Core i3-N300, 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.
