Celeron N3050 vs Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G and Celeron N3050 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1163 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.81 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 5 | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 7.82 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Raven Ridge (2017−2018) | Braswell (2015−2016) |
| Release date | 12 February 2018 (6 years ago) | 1 April 2015 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $169 | $107 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G and Celeron N3050 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 | 8 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 3.6 GHz | 1.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.9 GHz | 2.16 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | IDI |
| Multiplier | 36 | no data |
| L1 cache | 128K (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 4 MB (shared) | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 210 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 90 °C |
| Number of transistors | 4,950 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G and Celeron N3050 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 | AM4 | FCBGA1170 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 6 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G and Celeron N3050. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | 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 | + |
| Smart Connect | no data | - |
| HD Audio | no data | + |
| RST | no data | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Security technologies
Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G and Celeron N3050 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Boot | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| Identity Protection | - | + |
| OS Guard | no data | - |
| Anti-Theft | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G and Celeron N3050 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| VT-i | no data | - |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G and Celeron N3050. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Dual-channel | DDR3 |
| 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 | AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 | Intel® HD Graphics for Intel® Celeron® Processor N3000 Series |
| Max video memory | no data | 8 GB |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Clear Video | no data | + |
| Clear Video HD | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 600 MHz |
| Execution Units | no data | 12 |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G and Celeron N3050 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
| eDP | no data | + |
| DisplayPort | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G and Celeron N3050 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | + |
| OpenGL | no data | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G and Celeron N3050.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 12 | 4 |
| 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 | 5 |
| 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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 12 February 2018 | 1 April 2015 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 8 | 2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 6 Watt |
Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G has an age advantage of 2 years, and 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads.
Celeron N3050, on the other hand, has 983.3% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G and Celeron N3050. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G is a desktop processor while Celeron N3050 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G and Celeron N3050, 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.
