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
Significantly more l2 cache 2 MB vs 1 MB 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Higher clock speed 1.6 GHz vs 1.3 GHz Around 25% higher clock speed
Much better performance per watt 8.65 pt/W vs 2.34 pt/W Around 3.8x better performance per watt
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
Lower typical power consumption 4.88W vs 14.63W 3x lower typical power consumption
Newer Jan, 2015 vs Aug, 2011 Release date over 3 years later
Better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score 1,584 vs 896 More than 75% better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score
Lower annual commercial energy cost 5.26 $/year vs 15.77 $/year 3x lower annual commercial energy cost
Lower annual home energy cost 1.45 $/year vs 4.34 $/year 3x lower annual home energy cost
Front view of AMD E 300

Reasons to consider the
AMD E 300

Report a correction
Much better geekbench 3 AES single core score 41,900 MB/s vs 350.4 MB/s More than 119.5x better geekbench 3 AES single core score
Much better 3DMark06 CPU score 20.3 vs 18.5 Around 10% better 3DMark06 CPU score
Significantly higher GPU clock speed 488 MHz vs 320 MHz Around 55% higher GPU clock speed

Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron N3050 vs E 300

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

E 300
896

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Celeron N3050
350.4 MB/s
E 300
41,900 MB/s

3D Mark 06 (CPU)

E 300
20.3

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Celeron N3050  vs
E 300 
Clock speed 1.6 GHz 1.3 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
E 300 
Threads 2 2
L2 cache 2 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 1 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 14 nm 40 nm
Max CPUs 1 1

integrated graphics

GPU GPU GPU
Label Intel® HD Graphics Radeon™ HD 6310
GPU clock speed 320 MHz 488 MHz

power consumption

TDP 6W 18W
Annual home energy cost 1.45 $/year 4.34 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 5.26 $/year 15.77 $/year
Performance per watt 8.65 pt/W 2.34 pt/W
Typical power consumption 4.88W 14.63W
Intel Celeron N3050
Report a correction
AMD E 300
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus