OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

AMD 3020E review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£290PassMark multi-core score:2389N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:2.6 GHzCPU socket:FP5TDP (Thermal design power):6 W

AMD 3020E Review: Compare 168 technical specifications and 3 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

4.6/10

Overall score

Score
4.6/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 45%, Reviews score 25%, List score 20%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components

45%

3.4

Technical score

25%

3.4

Reviews score

20%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 98% of processors
5.9

Value for money

Value for money
5.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
Score components

70%

4.6

Overall score

30%

9.0

Price

â–¼Worse than 97%
3.4

Technical score

Technical score
3.4/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 45% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
Score components

60%

2.1

Performance

18%

4.1

Architecture

10%

5.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.8

Power & Thermal

4%

8.6

Platform

1%

6.2

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 97%
3.4

Reviews score

Reviews score
3.4/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models

3.4

Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.5

Average grade

20%

7.4

Popularity

Grades by review (3)
3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 98%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 20% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Best prices
    N/A~ £290
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD 3020E

Technical score
Technical score
3.4/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 45% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
Score components:

60%

2.1

Performance

18%

4.1

Architecture

10%

5.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.8

Power & Thermal

4%

8.6

Platform

1%

6.2

Integrated graphics

3.4
Reviews score
3.4
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
5.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
Score components:

70%

4.6

Overall score

30%

9.0

Price

5.9
Processor type
mobile
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 6.9% of processors and equal to that of 47.7% of processors.
CPU socket
FP5
This processor uses the FP5 CPU socket, which is older than that of 59% of processors and equal to that of 3.1% of processors.
Chipset
X870, X670E, B650, A620, X570, B550, A520, X470, B450, X370, B350, A320
This processor supports X870, X670E, B650, A620, X570, B550, A520, X470, B450, X370, B350, A320 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 95.4% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI2, ABM, ADX
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI2, ABM, ADX instruction sets, which is broader support than 92.1% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
2
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 2 CPU cores, which is fewer than 80.4% of processors and equal to 19.6% of processors.
CPU threads
2
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 2 CPU threads, which is fewer than 94.3% of processors and equal to 5.6% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
2.6 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 2.6 GHz which is lower than that of 97.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
2x 1.2 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 2x1.2 GHz which is lower than that of 98.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
2,389
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 2,389 in PassMark, which is lower than 91.2% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 52% of processors and equal to that of 32.9% of processors.
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 14 nm
This processor is built on the GlobalFoundries 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 51.6% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% of processors.
L3 cache
4 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 4 MB which is smaller than that of 71.7% of processors and equal to that of 13.8% of processors.
L2 cache
1 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 1 MB which is smaller than that of 68.3% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
L1 cache
192 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 192 KB which is smaller than that of 79.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.7% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 25.2% of processors and equal to that of 31.1% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,400 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,400 MHz, which is lower than that of 64.6% of processors and equal to 11.7% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2400 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2400 MHz, which is lower than that of 67.7% of processors and equal to 10.9% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
8 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 8 GB of memory, which is less than 98.3% of processors and equal to 1.6% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
AMD Radeon Graphics
Integrated GPU model
Radeon Vega 3
This processor uses the Radeon Vega 3 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 67% of processors and equal to that in 1.6% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
3
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 3 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 92.9% of processors and equal to 2.4% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 57.8% of processors and equal to that of 38.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.265 (HW decode), VP9 (HW decode)
This processor supports H.265 (HW decode), VP9 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 50.2% of processors and equal to 0.1% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
6 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 6 W which is lower than that of 97.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
6 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 6 W which is lower than that of 97.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more

AMD 3020E vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 86.7% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (6 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    6 W vs 45 W
  • 86.7% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (6 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    6 W vs 45 W
  • 5 °C higher temperature limit
    This processor has a higher temperature limit than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • Broader instruction support
    This processor supports a broader instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI2, ABM, ADX vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI2, ABM, ADX vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 15.8% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (149 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    149 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 8.1% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (GlobalFoundries 14 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    GlobalFoundries 14 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • Broader instruction support
    This processor supports a broader instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI2, ABM, ADX vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI2, ABM, ADX vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 8.1% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 15.8% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (149 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    149 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (GlobalFoundries 14 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    GlobalFoundries 14 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 86.7% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (6 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    6 W vs 45 W
  • 86.7% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (6 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    6 W vs 45 W
  • 5 °C higher temperature limit
    This processor has a higher temperature limit than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • 49.3% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.4/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models

    3.4

    Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.5

    Average grade

    20%

    7.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (3)
    3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.4 vs 6.7
  • 79.2% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,389 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,389 vs 11,469
  • 79.2% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,082 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,082 vs 5,209
  • 40.9% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.6 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    2.6 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 46.2% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,376 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,376 vs 2,558
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 91.6% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (236 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    236 vs 2,804.5
  • 57.2% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (657 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    657 vs 1,535
  • 49.3% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.4/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models

    3.4

    Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.5

    Average grade

    20%

    7.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (3)
    3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.4 vs 6.7
  • 22% worse value for money
    AMD 3020E has worse value for money than the average processor (5.9 vs 7.2).
    5.9 vs 7.2
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, SMAP, SMEP, SME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, SMAP, SMEP, SME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • Older TPM support
    This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (fTPM 2 vs PTT 2).
    fTPM 2.0 vs PTT 2.0
  • 79.2% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,389 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,389 vs 11,469
  • 40.9% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.6 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    2.6 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 79.2% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,082 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,082 vs 5,209
  • 46.2% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,376 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,376 vs 2,558
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 91.6% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (236 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    236 vs 2,804.5
  • 57.2% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (657 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    657 vs 1,535
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x1.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x1.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 6 fewer CPU threads
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (2 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    2 vs 8
  • 2 fewer performance cores
    This processor has fewer performance cores than the average processor (2 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    2 vs 4
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Dali vs Kaby Lake).
    Dali vs Kaby Lake
  • 66.7% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    1 MB vs 3 MB
  • 16.7% larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    14 nm vs 12 nm
  • 55.6% smaller L3 cache
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    4 MB vs 9 MB
  • 50% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (192 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    192 KB vs 384 KB
  • 4 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (12 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    12 vs 16
  • 25% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2400 MHz vs 3200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3200 MHz.
    2,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 87.5% less memory capacity
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (8 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    8 GB vs 64 GB
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2400 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR4-2,400 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.265 (HW decode), VP9 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.265 (HW decode), VP9 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 87.5% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (3 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    3 vs 24
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 5 °C higher CPU temperature
    This processor has a higher CPU temperature than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

7.0
AICvideo
≈ estimated
07/01/2021
Gaming test · frame rates and storage limits on a budget laptop
Verdict
AMD 3020E has an excellent processor and good graphics, but slow storage hurts gaming and loading.
6.0
Tech Unwrap
≈ estimated
24/06/2021
First look · walkthrough and quick audio and video checks
Verdict
AMD 3020E offers good audio and video for movies and music, but its 720p screen and missing keyboard backlight hold it back.
8.0
AICvideo
≈ estimated
18/03/2021
Comparison · battery, noise, keyboard and gaming tests
Verdict
AMD 3020E trails the Lenovo overall, though the faster CPU is not a necessity.
7.0
AICvideo
≈ estimated
18/03/2021
Comparison · two laptops, Athlon 3020e vs 3050U
Verdict
AMD 3020E is slower than its rival, but it is preferred overall for its package and everyday comfort.
Not graded
Overview video
Overview video

What reviewers agree on

Based on 0 · 3

Reviewers mostly agree its CPU performance is decent, with little else raised for or against it.
Praised
Pick a topic to see who said what

Third-party reviews

What we like about AMD 3020E

  • Excellent value for money for budget-conscious buyers
  • Highly power-efficient, leading to long battery life in many laptops
  • Reliable for basic tasks such as word processing, spreadsheets, and web browsing
  • Capable of smooth 1080p video streaming on platforms like YouTube and Netflix
  • Outperforms competitors like the Intel Celeron N4020 in some CPU benchmarks
  • Supports modern features like Windows 11 and integrated Radeon graphics

What we don't like about AMD 3020E

  • Poor performance in gaming, especially with modern 3D titles
  • Limited multitasking capabilities due to having only 2 cores and 2 threads
  • System can become sluggish when running multiple demanding applications simultaneously
  • Prone to bottlenecking during intensive tasks like video editing or heavy browsing
  • Often paired with low-end hardware, such as 4GB of RAM, which limits its potential
  • Older architecture that is no longer competitive with newer Ryzen or Core i3 chips

Verdict

The AMD 3020e is an entry-level mobile APU (codename Dali) based on the Zen architecture, featuring 2 cores and 2 threads with a base clock of 1.2 GHz and a boost clock of up to 2.6 GHz. Built on a 14nm process, it includes integrated Radeon Vega 3 graphics with 3 compute units (up to 1,000 MHz) and supports dual-channel DDR4-2400 memory. Its primary advantages are extreme power efficiency and a very low 6W TDP, which allows for fanless, silent laptop designs and extended battery life for basic tasks like web browsing and office productivity. However, its performance is strictly limited to light workloads; it lacks multi-threading (SMT), and the dual-core configuration struggles with modern gaming, heavy multitasking, or intensive video editing.

Compare AMD 3020E with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD 3020E and other processors

No results found