Ryzen 3 3200U vs Celeron N2940

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron N2940
2014
4 cores / 4 threads, 7 Watt
0.66
Ryzen 3 3200U
2019
2 cores / 4 threads, 15 Watt
2.38
+261%

Ryzen 3 3200U outperforms Celeron N2940 by a whopping 261% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron N2940 and Ryzen 3 3200U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking27401775
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel CeleronAMD Ryzen 3
Power efficiency8.9215.02
Architecture codenameBay Trail-M (2013−2014)Picasso-U (Zen) (2019)
Release date22 May 2014 (10 years ago)6 January 2019 (5 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Celeron N2940 and Ryzen 3 3200U 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)
Threads44
Base clock speed1.83 GHz2.6 GHz
Boost clock speed2.25 GHz3.5 GHz
Bus typeno dataPCIe 3.0
Multiplierno data26
L1 cache56K (per core)128K (per core)
L2 cache512K (per core)512K (per core)
L3 cache0 KB4 MB (shared)
Chip lithography22 nm12 nm
Die sizeno data246 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °C105 °C
Number of transistorsno data4940 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on Celeron N2940 and Ryzen 3 3200U 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)
SocketFCBGA1170FP5
Power consumption (TDP)7.5 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N2940 and Ryzen 3 3200U. 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, 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

Security technologies

Celeron N2940 and Ryzen 3 3200U technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDB+no data
Secure Key+no data
Anti-Theft-no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron N2940 and Ryzen 3 3200U are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d-no data
VT-x+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron N2940 and Ryzen 3 3200U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4
Maximum memory size8 GB64 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidth21.32 GB/s38.397 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel® HD Graphics for Intel Atom® Processor Z3700 SeriesAMD Radeon RX Vega 3
Quick Sync Video+-
Graphics max frequency854 MHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron N2940 and Ryzen 3 3200U integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported2no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron N2940 and Ryzen 3 3200U.

PCIe version2.03.0
PCI Express lanes412
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 N2940 0.66
Ryzen 3 3200U 2.38
+261%

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 N2940 1044
Ryzen 3 3200U 3786
+263%

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Celeron N2940 167
Ryzen 3 3200U 784
+369%

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Celeron N2940 501
Ryzen 3 3200U 1507
+201%

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 N2940 1150
Ryzen 3 3200U 4258
+270%

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 N2940 3958
Ryzen 3 3200U 9284
+135%

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 N2940 2191
Ryzen 3 3200U 3755
+71.4%

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 N2940 29.2
Ryzen 3 3200U 14.03
+108%

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

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

Celeron N2940 111
Ryzen 3 3200U 334
+202%

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 N2940 36
Ryzen 3 3200U 129
+263%

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 N2940 0.2
Ryzen 3 3200U 2.2
+817%

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 N2940 9
Ryzen 3 3200U 20
+108%

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 N2940 47
Ryzen 3 3200U 98
+108%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.66 2.38
Recency 22 May 2014 6 January 2019
Physical cores 4 2
Chip lithography 22 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 7 Watt 15 Watt

Celeron N2940 has 100% more physical cores, and 114.3% lower power consumption.

Ryzen 3 3200U, on the other hand, has a 260.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 83.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Ryzen 3 3200U is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N2940 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron N2940 and Ryzen 3 3200U, 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 N2940
Celeron N2940
AMD Ryzen 3 3200U
Ryzen 3 3200U

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.


2.6 106 votes

Rate Celeron N2940 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 1456 votes

Rate Ryzen 3 3200U on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron N2940 or Ryzen 3 3200U, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.