Celeron J4105 vs Ryzen 3 2200G
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 3 2200G outperforms Celeron J4105 by a whopping 132% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen 3 2200G and Celeron J4105 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1284 | 1897 |
| Place by popularity | 71 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 8.79 | 0.86 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 3 | Intel Celeron |
| Architecture codename | Raven Ridge (2017−2018) | Gemini Lake (2019) |
| Release date | 12 February 2018 (6 years ago) | 11 December 2017 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $99 | $107 |
| Current price | $88 (0.9x MSRP) | $400 (3.7x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Ryzen 3 2200G has 922% better value for money than Celeron J4105.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 3 2200G and Celeron J4105 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) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 1.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 2.5 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128K (per core) | 256 KB |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 4 MB |
| L3 cache | 4 MB (shared) | 4 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 210 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | 4,950 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | Yes | No |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 3 2200G and Celeron J4105 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 |
| Socket | AM4 | FCBGA1090 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 10 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 3 2200G and Celeron J4105. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | XFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT | Intel® SSE4.2 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | no data |
| AVX | + | no data |
| 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 | no data | + |
| Smart Response | no data | - |
| GPIO | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | - |
| Status | no data | Discontinued |
Security technologies
Ryzen 3 2200G and Celeron J4105 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| MPX | no data | + |
| Identity Protection | no data | + |
| SGX | no data | Yes with Intel® ME |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
| Anti-Theft | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 3 2200G and Celeron J4105 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | no data |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 3 2200G and Celeron J4105. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Dual-channel | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | 64 GB | 8 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 46.933 GB/s | 38.397 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) | Intel UHD Graphics 600 |
| Max video memory | no data | 8 GB |
| Quick Sync Video | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 750 MHz |
| Execution Units | no data | 12 |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Ryzen 3 2200G and Celeron J4105 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
| eDP | no data | + |
| DisplayPort | no data | + |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| MIPI-DSI | no data | + |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Ryzen 3 2200G and Celeron J4105 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| 4K resolution support | no data | + |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Ryzen 3 2200G and Celeron J4105 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 12 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.4 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 3 2200G and Celeron J4105.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 12 | 6 |
| USB revision | no data | 2.0/3.0 |
| Total number of SATA ports | no data | 2 |
| Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports | no data | 2 |
| Number of USB ports | no data | 8 |
| 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.
Ryzen 3 2200G outperforms Celeron J4105 by 132% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Ryzen 3 2200G outperforms Celeron J4105 by 133% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Ryzen 3 2200G outperforms Celeron J4105 by 207% in GeekBench 5 Single-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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Ryzen 3 2200G outperforms Celeron J4105 by 209% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
Benchmark coverage: 15%
Ryzen 3 2200G outperforms Celeron J4105 by 114% in Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 15%
Ryzen 3 2200G outperforms Celeron J4105 by 99% in Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.37 | 1.88 |
| Integrated graphics card | 4.50 | 0.86 |
| Recency | 12 February 2018 | 11 December 2017 |
| Cost | $99 | $107 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 10 Watt |
The Ryzen 3 2200G is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron J4105 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 3 2200G and Celeron J4105, 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.
