CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of N3050 vs 50 among all CPUs

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

Sky Diver and Cloud Gate

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

8.3

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Celeron N3050 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Celeron N3050  based on its single-core performance and power consumption.

See full details

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Intel Celeron N3050

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of Intel Celeron N3050

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Celeron N3050

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron N3050

Report a correction
Much higher turbo clock speed 2.16 GHz vs None Compared to all cpus, 2.16 GHz turbo clock speed is just OK
Much newer manufacturing process 14 nm vs 40 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Higher clock speed 1.6 GHz vs 1 GHz More than 60% higher clock speed
Significantly better CompuBench 1.5 bitcoin mining score 6.77 mHash/s vs 4.04 mHash/s Around 70% better CompuBench 1.5 bitcoin mining score
Much better performance per watt 8.65 pt/W vs 3.24 pt/W Around 2.8x better performance per watt
Newer Jan, 2015 vs Jan, 2011 Release date over 4 years later
Better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score 1,584 vs 722 Around 2.2x better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score
Higher GPU clock speed 320 MHz vs 276 MHz More than 15% higher GPU clock speed
Front view of AMD C 50

Reasons to consider the
AMD C 50

Report a correction
Much better geekbench 3 AES single core score 32,500 MB/s vs 350.4 MB/s More than 92.8x better geekbench 3 AES single core score
Much better 3DMark06 CPU score 19.8 vs 18.5 More than 5% better 3DMark06 CPU score

Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron N3050 vs AMD C 50

CompuBench 1.5 (Bitcoin mining) Data courtesy CompuBench

Celeron N3050
6.77 mHash/s
AMD C 50
4.04 mHash/s

CompuBench 1.5 (Ocean surface simulation) Data courtesy CompuBench

Celeron N3050
69.59 fps
AMD C 50
29.59 fps

CompuBench 1.5 (T-Rex) Data courtesy CompuBench

Celeron N3050
0.44 fps
AMD C 50
0.09 fps

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Celeron N3050
350.4 MB/s
AMD C 50
32,500 MB/s

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Celeron N3050  vs
AMD C 50 
Clock speed 1.6 GHz 1 GHz
Turbo clock speed 2.16 GHz None
Cores Dual core Dual core

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
SSE2
MMX
SSE3
SSE
AMD64
AMD-V
Supplemental SSE3
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3L-1600
DDR3-1066

details

Celeron N3050  vs
AMD C 50 
Threads 2 2
L2 cache 2 MB 2 MB
L2 cache per core 1 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 14 nm 40 nm
Max CPUs 1 1

integrated graphics

GPU GPU GPU
Label Intel® HD Graphics Radeon™ HD 6250
GPU clock speed 320 MHz 276 MHz

power consumption

TDP 6W 9W
Annual home energy cost 1.45 $/year 2.17 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 5.26 $/year 7.88 $/year
Performance per watt 8.65 pt/W 3.24 pt/W
Typical power consumption 4.88W 7.31W
Intel Celeron N3050
Report a correction
AMD C 50
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus