3015e vs Celeron N2920
Aggregate performance score
3015e outperforms Celeron N2920 by a whopping 182% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron N2920 and 3015e processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2808 | 2065 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron | AMD Raven Ridge (Ryzen 2000 APU) |
| Power efficiency | 8.11 | 26.66 |
| Architecture codename | Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) | Pollock (Zen) (2020) |
| Release date | 1 December 2013 (11 years ago) | 4 August 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $107 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Celeron N2920 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 cores | 4 (Quad-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 1.86 GHz | 1.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2 GHz | 2.3 GHz |
| L1 cache | 56K (per core) | 192 KB |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 4 MB |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 14 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | 105 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron N2920 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 configuration | 1 | no data |
| Socket | FCBGA1170 | FT5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7.5 Watt | 6 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N2920 and 3015e. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | MMX, 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 |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Smart Connect | + | no data |
| RST | - | no data |
Security technologies
Celeron N2920 and 3015e technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | + | no data |
| Anti-Theft | - | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron N2920 and 3015e are enumerated here.
| VT-d | - | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron N2920 and 3015e. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | 8 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Intel HD Graphics for Intel Atom Processor Z3700 Series | AMD Radeon RX Vega 3 ( - 600 MHz) |
| Graphics max frequency | 844 MHz | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron N2920 and 3015e integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 2 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron N2920 and 3015e.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 4 | no data |
| USB revision | 3.0 and 2.0 | no data |
| Total number of SATA ports | 2 | no data |
| Number of USB ports | 5 | no data |
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 | 0.60 | 1.69 |
| Integrated graphics card | 0.77 | 2.98 |
| Recency | 1 December 2013 | 4 August 2020 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7 Watt | 6 Watt |
Celeron N2920 has 100% more physical cores.
3015e, on the other hand, has a 181.7% higher aggregate performance score, 287% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 6 years, a 57.1% more advanced lithography process, and 16.7% lower power consumption.
The 3015e is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N2920 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron N2920 and 3015e, 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.
