Celeron J4025 vs Ryzen 3 3200G
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 3 3200G outperforms Celeron J4025 by a whopping 385% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen 3 3200G and Celeron J4025 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1309 | 2507 |
| Place by popularity | 28 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 8.90 | 2.69 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 3 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 6.54 | 8.75 |
| Architecture codename | Picasso (2019−2022) | Gemini Lake Refresh (2019) |
| Release date | 12 June 2019 (5 years ago) | 4 November 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $99 | $107 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Ryzen 3 3200G has 231% better value for money than Celeron J4025.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 3 3200G and Celeron J4025 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) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 3.6 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4 GHz | 2.9 GHz |
| Bus type | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Multiplier | 36 | no data |
| L1 cache | 384 KB | 56 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 4 MB (shared) |
| L3 cache | 4 MB (shared) | 4 MB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 209.78 mm2 | 93 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | 4940 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 3 3200G and Celeron J4025 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 3200G and Celeron J4025. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.2 |
| 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 | - |
Security technologies
Ryzen 3 3200G and Celeron J4025 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| MPX | - | + |
| Identity Protection | - | + |
| 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 3200G and Celeron J4025 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 Ryzen 3 3200G and Celeron J4025. 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 | no data |
| 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 | - | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 700 MHz |
| Execution Units | no data | 12 |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Ryzen 3 3200G and Celeron J4025 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
| eDP | no data | + |
| DisplayPort | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| MIPI-DSI | no data | + |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Ryzen 3 3200G and Celeron J4025 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| 4K resolution support | no data | + |
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | no data | 4096x2160@30Hz |
| Max resolution over eDP | no data | 4096x2160@60Hz |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | no data | 4096x2160@60Hz |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Ryzen 3 3200G and Celeron J4025 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 3200G and Celeron J4025.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 20 | 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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.66 | 0.96 |
| Integrated graphics card | 4.50 | 0.87 |
| Recency | 12 June 2019 | 4 November 2019 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 10 Watt |
Ryzen 3 3200G has a 385.4% higher aggregate performance score, 417.2% faster integrated GPU, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron J4025, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 months, and 550% lower power consumption.
The Ryzen 3 3200G is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron J4025 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 3 3200G and Celeron J4025, 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.
