Celeron N3350 vs N2920

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron N2920
2013
4 cores / 4 threads, 7 Watt
0.60
Celeron N3350
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 6 Watt
0.70
+16.7%

Celeron N3350 outperforms Celeron N2920 by a moderate 17% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron N2920 and Celeron N3350 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking27932707
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel CeleronIntel Celeron
Power efficiency8.1111.04
Architecture codenameBay Trail-M (2013−2014)Apollo Lake (2014−2016)
Release date1 December 2013 (11 years ago)30 August 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$107$24

Detailed specifications

Celeron N2920 and Celeron N3350 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 GHz1.1 GHz
Boost clock speed2 GHz2.4 GHz
Multiplierno data11
L1 cache56K (per core)no data
L2 cache512K (per core)1 MB
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography22 nm14 nm
Maximum core temperature105 °C105 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron N2920 and Celeron N3350 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 configuration11 (Uniprocessor)
SocketFCBGA1170FCBGA1296
Power consumption (TDP)7.5 Watt6 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N2920 and Celeron N3350. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology--
Hyper-Threading Technology--
Idle States++
Thermal Monitoring-+
Smart Responseno data-
GPIOno data+
Smart Connect+-
HD Audiono data+
RST--

Security technologies

Celeron N2920 and Celeron N3350 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDB++
Secure Bootno data+
Secure Keyno data+
MPX-+
Identity Protection-+
OS Guardno data+
Anti-Theft--

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron N2920 and Celeron N3350 are enumerated here.

VT-d-+
VT-x++
VT-ino data-
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron N2920 and Celeron N3350. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3, DDR4
Maximum memory size8 GB8 GB
Max memory channels22

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
Intel HD Graphics for Intel Atom Processor Z3700 SeriesIntel HD Graphics 500
Max video memoryno data8 GB
Quick Sync Video-+
Clear Videono data+
Clear Video HD-+
Graphics max frequency844 MHz650 MHz
Execution Unitsno data12
InTru 3D--

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron N2920 and Celeron N3350 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported23
eDPno data+
DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+
MIPI-DSIno data+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Celeron N2920 and Celeron N3350 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno data+
OpenGLno data+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron N2920 and Celeron N3350.

PCIe version2.02.0
PCI Express lanes46
USB revision3.0 and 2.02.0/3.0
Total number of SATA ports22
Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Portsno data2
Number of USB ports58
Integrated LANno data-
UARTno 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 0.60
Celeron N3350 0.70
+16.7%

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
Celeron N3350 1107
+16.5%

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

Celeron N2920 1030
Celeron N3350 1490
+44.7%

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

Celeron N2920 3530
+33%
Celeron N3350 2654

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

Celeron N2920 1861
+12.5%
Celeron N3350 1655

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
+42.2%
Celeron N3350 45.5

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

Celeron N2920 1
+28.8%
Celeron N3350 1

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
+39.4%
Celeron N3350 85

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
Celeron N3350 46
+41.5%

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark 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 loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

Celeron N2920 0.38
Celeron N3350 0.59
+55.3%

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
Celeron N3350 0.7
+210%

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
+34.8%
Celeron N3350 6

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
+29.4%
Celeron N3350 33

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
+181%
Celeron N3350 616

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.60 0.70
Recency 1 December 2013 30 August 2016
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.

Celeron N3350, on the other hand, has a 16.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 57.1% more advanced lithography process, and 16.7% lower power consumption.

The Celeron N3350 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N2920 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron N2920 and Celeron N3350, 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
Intel Celeron N3350
Celeron N3350

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
2.8 957 votes

Rate Celeron N3350 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron N2920 or Celeron N3350, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.