Intel N3350 vs Celeron N3050 |
Released July, 2016
Intel N3350
- 1.1 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the Intel N3350
 | Higher turbo clock speed 2.4 GHz | | Better performance per watt 10.98 pt/W |
| | Better PassMark (Single core) score 763 | | Newer Jul, 2016 |
VS
Released January, 2015
Intel Celeron N3050
- 1.6 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the Celeron N3050
| | Higher clock speed 1.6 GHz | | Higher GPU clock speed 320 MHz |
| | Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 1.6 GHz |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Intel N3350CPUBoss Winner |  | |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Higher turbo clock speed | 2.4 GHz | vs | 2.16 GHz | More than 10% higher turbo clock speed | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Better performance per watt | 10.98 pt/W | vs | 8.65 pt/W | More than 25% better performance per watt | |||
| Better PassMark (Single core) score | 763 | vs | 467 | Around 65% better PassMark (Single core) score | |||
| Newer | Jul, 2016 | vs | Jan, 2015 | Release date over 1 years later | |||
| Slightly better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 2.31 GHz | vs | 2.14 GHz | Around 10% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
| |||||||
| Higher clock speed | 1.6 GHz | vs | 1.1 GHz | More than 45% higher clock speed | |||
| Higher GPU clock speed | 320 MHz | vs | 200 MHz | 60% higher GPU clock speed | |||
| Better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 1.6 GHz | vs | 1.1 GHz | More than 45% better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of N3350 vs Celeron N3050
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
PassMark (Single Core)
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | N3350 | vs | Celeron N3050 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 1.1 GHz | 1.6 GHz | |
| Turbo clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 2.16 GHz | |
| Cores | Dual core | Dual core | |
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Supports trusted computing | No | No | |
| Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Instruction set extensions | |||
| AES | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 6W | 6W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 1.45 $/year | 1.45 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 5.26 $/year | 5.26 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 10.98 pt/W | 8.65 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 4.88W | 4.88W | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | FSB | FSB | |
| Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
details | N3350 | vs | Celeron N3050 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 2 | 2 | |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 2 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 1 MB/core | 1 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 14 nm | 14 nm | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclocked clock speed | 2.31 GHz | 2.14 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 1.1 GHz | 1.6 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 2.31 GHz | 2.14 GHz | |
integrated graphics | |||
| GPU | GPU | GPU | |
| Label | Intel® HD Graphics 500 | Intel® HD Graphics | |
| Number of displays supported | 3 | 3 | |
| GPU clock speed | 200 MHz | 320 MHz | |
memory controller | |||
| Memory controller | Built-in | Built-in | |
| Memory type | |||
| DDR3L-1600 | |||
| DDR3 | |||
| Channels | Dual Channel | Dual Channel | |
| Supports ECC | No | No | |
| Maximum bandwidth | 12,800 MB/s | 25,600 MB/s | |
| Maximum memory size | 8,192 MB | 8,192 MB | |
 Intel N3350  Report a correction |  Intel Celeron N3050 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $107 | $107 | |
| N3050 vs N2840 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $107 | $161 | |
| N3050 vs N3700 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $107 | $275 | |
| N3050 vs 4005U | ||
| | VS |  |
| $107 | $17 | |
| N3050 vs Z3735F | ||
| | VS |  |
| $107 | $21 | |
| N3050 vs x5-Z8300 | ||
 | VS |  |
| N3350 vs N3060 | ||
| | VS |  |
| N3350 vs N4200 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $305 | $300 | |
| W3520 vs 2500 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $272 | $350 | |
| 4790K vs 6700K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 4200U vs 6410 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 6200U vs 7th Gen A9-9410 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $275 | $161 | |
| 4005U vs N3540 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $134 | $225 | |
| 847 vs 3217U | ||
 | VS | |
| $250 | $350 | |
| 6600K vs 6700K | ||
