Athlon 3000G vs Celeron M 333
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 333 and Athlon 3000G processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 1672 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 5.27 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Celeron M | AMD Athlon |
| Power efficiency | no data | 7.63 |
| Architecture codename | Banias (2003) | Zen+ (2018−2019) |
| Release date | no data (2024 years ago) | 21 November 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $49 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 333 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 | 1 (Single-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 1 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 0.9 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Bus rate | 400 MHz | no data |
| Multiplier | no data | 35 |
| L1 cache | no data | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 4 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | no data | 209.78 mm2? |
| Number of transistors | no data | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 333 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 | no data | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | no data | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 5 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 333 and Athlon 3000G. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| PowerNow | - | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M 333 and Athlon 3000G are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 333 and Athlon 3000G. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | 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 | no data | AMD Radeon RX Vega 3 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron M 333 and Athlon 3000G.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 6 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 1 | 2 |
| Threads | 1 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 5 Watt | 35 Watt |
Celeron M 333 has 600% lower power consumption.
Athlon 3000G, on the other hand, has 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 828.6% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Celeron M 333 and Athlon 3000G. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Celeron M 333 is a notebook processor while Athlon 3000G is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 333 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.
