3020e vs Celeron N2920

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron N2920
2013
4 cores / 4 threads, 7 Watt
0.61
3020e
2020
2 cores / 2 threads, 6 Watt
1.56
+156%

3020e outperforms Celeron N2920 by a whopping 156% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron N2920 and 3020e processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking27892120
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel CeleronAMD Raven Ridge (Ryzen 2000 APU)
Power efficiency8.0924.15
Architecture codenameBay Trail-M (2013−2014)Dali (Zen) (2020)
Release date1 December 2013 (10 years ago)4 August 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$107no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron N2920 and 3020e 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speed1.86 GHz1.2 GHz
Boost clock speed2 GHz2.6 GHz
L1 cache56K (per core)192 KB
L2 cache512K (per core)1 MB
L3 cache0 KB4 MB
Chip lithography22 nm14 nm
Maximum core temperature105 °C105 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on Celeron N2920 and 3020e 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 configuration1no data
SocketFCBGA1170FT5
Power consumption (TDP)7.5 Watt6 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N2920 and 3020e. 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, 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 3020e 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 3020e 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 3020e. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4
Maximum memory size8 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel® HD Graphics for Intel Atom® Processor Z3700 SeriesAMD Radeon RX Vega 3
Graphics max frequency844 MHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron N2920 and 3020e integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported2no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron N2920 and 3020e.

PCIe version2.0no data
PCI Express lanes4no data
USB revision3.0 and 2.0no data
Total number of SATA ports2no data
Number of USB ports5no 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.

Celeron N2920 0.61
3020e 1.56
+156%

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 N2920 950
3020e 2439
+157%

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

Celeron N2920 31.99
3020e 29
+10.3%

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

Celeron N2920 119
3020e 196
+65.4%

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.

Celeron N2920 33
3020e 92
+183%

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

Celeron N2920 0.2
3020e 1.1
+424%

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

Celeron N2920 8
3020e 13
+53.1%

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

Celeron N2920 42
3020e 65
+55.2%

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Celeron N2920 1728
+40.3%
3020e 1232

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.61 1.56
Recency 1 December 2013 4 August 2020
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 22 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 7 Watt 6 Watt

Celeron N2920 has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

3020e, on the other hand, has a 155.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 57.1% more advanced lithography process, and 16.7% lower power consumption.

The 3020e is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N2920 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron N2920 and 3020e, 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 N2920
Celeron N2920
AMD 3020e
3020e

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.

Community ratings

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


2.5 32 votes

Rate Celeron N2920 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 812 votes

Rate 3020e on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron N2920 or 3020e, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.