Ryzen 3 2300U vs Celeron N4000
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 3 2300U outperforms Celeron N4000 by a whopping 275% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron N4000 and Ryzen 3 2300U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2513 | 1529 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron | AMD Ryzen 3 |
| Power efficiency | 14.67 | 22.02 |
| Architecture codename | Goldmont Plus (2017) | Raven Ridge (2017−2018) |
| Release date | 11 December 2017 (6 years ago) | 26 October 2017 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $107 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Celeron N4000 and Ryzen 3 2300U 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 1.1 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.6 GHz | 3.4 GHz |
| Multiplier | 11 | 20 |
| L1 cache | 112 KB | 128K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 4 MB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 4 MB | 4 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | no data | 246 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 deg C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 4950 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron N4000 and Ryzen 3 2300U 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 (Uniprocessor) | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FCBGA1090 | FP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N4000 and Ryzen 3 2300U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.2 | XFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Speed Shift | - | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Smart Response | - | no data |
| GPIO | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | - | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Celeron N4000 and Ryzen 3 2300U technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | + | no data |
| Secure Key | + | no data |
| MPX | + | - |
| Identity Protection | + | - |
| SGX | Yes with Intel® ME | no data |
| OS Guard | + | no data |
| Anti-Theft | - | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron N4000 and Ryzen 3 2300U are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron N4000 and Ryzen 3 2300U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| Maximum memory size | 8 GB | 32 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 38.397 GB/s | 38.397 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Intel UHD Graphics 600 | AMD Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) ( - 1100 MHz) |
| Max video memory | 8 GB | no data |
| Quick Sync Video | + | - |
| Graphics max frequency | 650 MHz | no data |
| Execution Units | 12 | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron N4000 and Ryzen 3 2300U integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 3 | no data |
| eDP | + | no data |
| DisplayPort | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
| MIPI-DSI | + | no data |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Celeron N4000 and Ryzen 3 2300U integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| 4K resolution support | + | no data |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Celeron N4000 and Ryzen 3 2300U integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | 12 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron N4000 and Ryzen 3 2300U.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 6 | 12 |
| USB revision | 2.0/3.0 | no data |
| Total number of SATA ports | 2 | no data |
| Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports | 2 | no data |
| Number of USB ports | 8 | no data |
| Integrated LAN | - | no data |
| UART | + | 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.
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.
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.
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.
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.93 | 3.49 |
| Integrated graphics card | 0.87 | 3.04 |
| Recency | 11 December 2017 | 26 October 2017 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 4 |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6 Watt | 15 Watt |
Celeron N4000 has an age advantage of 1 month, and 150% lower power consumption.
Ryzen 3 2300U, on the other hand, has a 275.3% higher aggregate performance score, 249.4% faster integrated GPU, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
The Ryzen 3 2300U is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N4000 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron N4000 and Ryzen 3 2300U, 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.
