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 Athlon Silver 3050C review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£95PassMark multi-core score:2879N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:3.2 GHzCPU socket:FP5TDP (Thermal design power):15 W

AMD Athlon Silver 3050C Review: Compare 74 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

6.3/10

Overall score

Score
6.3/ 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 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, 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 63% of models
Score components

40%

4.8

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.2, the mark of a weaker model in this category

25%

?

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 63% of processors
7.4

Value for money

Value for money
7.4/ 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–² Better than 54% of models
Score components

70%

6.3

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–²Better than 54%
4.8

Technical score

Technical score
4.8/ 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 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
Score components

60%

4.4

Performance

18%

4.1

Architecture

10%

4.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.0

Power & Thermal

4%

7.8

Platform

1%

6.0

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 64%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
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
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.2.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

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 25% 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
Where to buy
    N/A~ £95
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 Athlon Silver 3050C

Technical score
Technical score
4.8/ 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 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
Score components:

60%

4.4

Performance

18%

4.1

Architecture

10%

4.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.0

Power & Thermal

4%

7.8

Platform

1%

6.0

Integrated graphics

4.8
Reviews score
7.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.4/ 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–² Better than 54% of models
Score components:

70%

6.3

Overall score

30%

10

Price

7.4
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
N/A
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, BMI1, BMI2
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2 instruction sets, which is broader support than 80.8% of processors and equal to that of 3.3% 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
3.2 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.2 GHz which is lower than that of 90.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
2x 2.3 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 2x2.3 GHz which is lower than that of 91% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
2,879
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 2,879 in PassMark, which is lower than 87.3% of processors.
Show more
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
32 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 32 GB of memory, which is less than 73% of processors and equal to 18.9% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Radeon Vega 2
Integrated GPU model
Radeon Vega 2
This processor uses the Radeon Vega 2 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 66.8% of processors and equal to that in 0.1% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
2
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 2 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 95.5% of processors and equal to 4.5% 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
VP9 (HW decode)
This processor supports VP9 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 73.9% of processors and equal to 3.5% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 15 W which is lower than that of 79.2% of processors and equal to that of 15.1% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
15 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 15 W which is lower than that of 78.3% of processors and equal to that of 15.6% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
Show more

AMD Athlon Silver 3050C vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 66.7% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 5 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 16.4% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (148 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    148 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
  • 2.63x cheaper
    AMD Athlon Silver 3050C is cheaper than the average processor (£95 vs £250).
    £95 vs £250
  • 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
  • 2.63x cheaper
    AMD Athlon Silver 3050C is cheaper than the average processor (£95 vs £250).
    £95 vs £250
  • 16.4% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (148 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    148 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
  • 66.7% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 5 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 74.9% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,879 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,879 vs 11,469
  • 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
  • 27.3% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Dali vs Kaby Lake).
    Dali vs Kaby Lake
  • 29.3% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,809 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,809 vs 2,558
  • 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
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x2.3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x2.3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, SME vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, SME vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, SME vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, SME 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
  • 74.9% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,879 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,879 vs 11,469
  • 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
  • 27.3% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 29.3% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,809 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,809 vs 2,558
  • 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
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x2.3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x2.3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 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
  • 8 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (8 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    8 vs 16
  • 25% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    2,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 50% less memory capacity
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (32 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    32 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 (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)).
    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)
  • 91.7% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (2 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    2 vs 24
  • 5 °C lower temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Athlon Silver 3050C

  • Affordable entry-level pricing for budget-conscious buyers.
  • Capable of handling basic daily tasks like word processing (Word, Excel) and web browsing.
  • Highly energy-efficient with a low 15W Thermal Design Power (TDP).
  • Reliable for student use and simple multimedia consumption.
  • Supports ECC memory and multithreading, which is rare for some entry-level chips.
  • Runs relatively cool during non-intensive operations.

What customers don't like about AMD Athlon Silver 3050C

  • Poor gaming performance, struggling with most modern 3D titles.
  • Limited to only 2 cores and 2 threads, leading to weak multitasking capabilities.
  • Significant performance lag when running multiple intensive applications simultaneously.
  • Built on an older 14nm process, which is less efficient than modern 7nm alternatives.
  • Integrated Radeon graphics are very weak ('potato' level) for anything beyond basic display tasks.
  • Not recommended for demanding workloads like programming or video editing.

Verdict

The AMD Athlon Silver 3050C is an entry-level mobile processor designed primarily for Chromebooks, featuring 2 cores and 2 threads with a base clock speed of 2.3 GHz and a turbo boost up to 3.2 GHz. Built on a 14nm process with the Zen (Dali) architecture, it includes integrated Radeon Graphics (Vega 2) and operates at a low 15W TDP, which can be configured between 12W and 25W. Its main advantages are its high energy efficiency for basic productivity, support for up to 32GB of DDR4-2400 RAM, and inclusion of ECC memory support, making it reliable for everyday web browsing and office tasks. However, its primary drawbacks include a lack of multi-threading (SMT) and a low core count, which significantly limit its performance in modern gaming, heavy multitasking, or demanding creative workloads.

Compare AMD Athlon Silver 3050C 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 Athlon Silver 3050C and other processors

No results found