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

Intel Celeron N3350 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£35PassMark multi-core score:1113N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:2.4 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1296TDP (Thermal design power):6 W

Intel Celeron N3350 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 6 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

5.6/10

Overall score

Score
5.6/ 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 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 84% of models
Score components

40%

3.3

Technical score

25%

7.8

Reviews score

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 84% of processors
7.0

Value for money

Value for money
7.0/ 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 66% of models
Score components

70%

5.6

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 66%
3.3

Technical score

Technical score
3.3/ 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 98% of models
Score components

60%

2.3

Performance

18%

4.1

Architecture

10%

3.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

6.8

Platform

1%

6.3

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 98%
7.8

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.8/ 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–² Better than 61% of models

80%

7.7

Average grade

20%

8.3

Popularity

Grades by review (6)
6 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–²Better than 61%
?

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~ £35
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the Intel Celeron N3350

Based on 0 · 4

Reviewers agree it suits compact, lightweight devices, with no clear complaint standing out.
Praised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Celeron N3350

Technical score
Technical score
3.3/ 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 98% of models
Score components:

60%

2.3

Performance

18%

4.1

Architecture

10%

3.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

6.8

Platform

1%

6.3

Integrated graphics

3.3
Reviews score
7.8
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.0/ 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 66% of models
Score components:

70%

5.6

Overall score

30%

10

Price

7.0
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
FCBGA1296
This processor uses the FCBGA1296 CPU socket, which is older than that of 93.5% 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, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES, SHA
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES, SHA instruction sets, which is narrower support than 72.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% 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
2.4 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 2.4 GHz which is lower than that of 98.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
2x 1.10 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 2x1.10 GHz which is lower than that of 99.3% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
1,113
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 1,113 in PassMark, which is lower than 98.7% 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
Intel 14 nm
This processor is built on the Intel 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 55.9% of processors and equal to that of 29% of processors.
L3 cache
0 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 0 MB which is smaller than that of 93.9% of processors and equal to that of 6.1% of processors.
L2 cache
2 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 2 MB which is smaller than that of 52.9% of processors and equal to that of 10.8% of processors.
L1 cache
112 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 112 KB which is smaller than that of 98.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR3L/LPDDR3/LPDDR4
This processor supports DDR DDR3L/LPDDR3/LPDDR4, which is older than that of 83.7% 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)
LPDDR4-2400 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR4-2400 MHz, which is lower than that of 78.7% 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.
Intel HD Graphics 500
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 500
This processor uses the Intel HD Graphics 500 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 80% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
12
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 12 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 62.7% of processors and equal to 9.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
200 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 200 MHz which is lower than that of 96.8% of processors and equal to that of 3% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW dec
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)
6 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 6 W which is lower than that of 98.4% of processors and equal to that of 1.3% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
1 second
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 1 second which is longer than that of 97.2% of processors and equal to that of 2.8% of processors.
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more

Intel Celeron N3350 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
  • 90.6% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (6 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    6 W vs 64 W
  • 2x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 42.9% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (101 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    101 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 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
  • 16.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.8/ 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–² Better than 61% of models

    80%

    7.7

    Average grade

    20%

    8.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (6)
    6 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.
    7.8 vs 6.7
  • 7.14x cheaper
    Intel Celeron N3350 is cheaper than the average processor (£35 vs £250).
    £35 vs £250
  • 16.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.8/ 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–² Better than 61% of models

    80%

    7.7

    Average grade

    20%

    8.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (6)
    6 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.
    7.8 vs 6.7
  • 7.14x cheaper
    Intel Celeron N3350 is cheaper than the average processor (£35 vs £250).
    £35 vs £250
  • 2x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 42.9% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (101 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    101 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 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
  • 90.6% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (6 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    6 W vs 64 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
  • 91.5% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (444 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    444 vs 5,209
  • 90.3% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,113 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,113 vs 11,469
  • 68.7% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (801 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    801 vs 2,558
  • 45.5% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    2.4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 81.1% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (290 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    290 vs 1,535
  • 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
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Apollo Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Apollo Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x1.1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x1.10 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 3.5% worse value for money
    Intel Celeron N3350 has worse value for money than the average processor (6.95 vs 7.2).
    6.95 vs 7.2
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, MPX, OS Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, MPX, OS Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1296 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1296 vs FP5
  • 4 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2016 vs 2020).
    September 2016
    2016 vs 2020
  • 91.5% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (444 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    444 vs 5,209
  • 90.3% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,113 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,113 vs 11,469
  • 68.7% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (801 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    801 vs 2,558
  • 45.5% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    2.4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 81.1% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (290 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    290 vs 1,535
  • 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
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x1.1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x1.10 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
  • 29.2% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (347 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    347 vs 490
  • 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.
  • 17 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (11 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    11 vs 28
  • No speed boosting
    This processor does not support automatic speed boosting, while the average processor does. 87.7% of processors offer this.
  • 37.5% lower bus transfer rate
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Apollo Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Apollo Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 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
  • 70.8% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (112 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    112 KB vs 384 KB
  • 33.3% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (2 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    2 MB vs 3 MB
  • 10 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (6 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    6 vs 16
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x4, x2/x2, x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x4, x2/x2, x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • Older PCIe version
    This processor supports an older PCIe version than the average processor (2 vs 3).
    2.0 vs 3.0
  • 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
  • 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
  • Older DDR support
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3L/LPDDR3/LPDDR4 vs DDR4).
    DDR3L/LPDDR3/LPDDR4 vs DDR4
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (LPDDR4-2400 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    LPDDR4-2,400 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 18.1% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (38.4 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    38.4 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW dec vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW dec vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • Inferior integrated GPU
    This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Intel HD Graphics 500 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel HD Graphics 500 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 50% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (12 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    12 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
  • 27 seconds shorter turbo duration
    This processor has a lower turbo duration limit than the average processor (1 seconds vs 28 seconds). The average processor maintains turbo for 28 seconds.
    1 seconds vs 28 seconds

Video reviews

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

9.0
johnny0723
≈ estimated
05/08/2020
Hands-on review · setup, browsing and streaming tests
Verdict
Intel Celeron N3350 is a smooth, quiet basic Windows PC for browsing, email and streaming at a good price.
6.0
AICvideo
≈ estimated
16/04/2018
Hands-on comparison · Cinebench and PassMark benchmarks
Verdict
Intel Celeron N3350 handles basic tasks and video playback, but it is not powerful enough for video editing or multitasking.
6.0
GAMER CLINTON
≈ estimated
21/09/2025
Gaming test · Left 4 Dead 2 on low settings
Verdict
Intel Celeron N3350 keeps Left 4 Dead 2 playable on low settings, but frame rates dip in large zombie fights.
7.0
One piece
≈ estimated
08/06/2021
Personal purchase review · setup, battery and browsing use
Verdict
Intel Celeron N3350 is good for cheap everyday browsing, but not for gaming or streaming movies.
Not graded
Overview video
Hands-on video, no verdict
Overview video
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Overview video

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Celeron N3350

  • Efficient power consumption (6W TDP) makes it ideal for fanless, silent, and passively cooled systems
  • Adequate for light, single-threaded tasks such as basic web browsing, checking emails, and simple office work
  • Capable of streaming and playing 4K Ultra HD video smoothly due to its integrated Intel HD Graphics 500
  • Cost-effective choice for ultra-budget laptops, mini PCs, and entry-level Chromebooks
  • Suitable for low-demand 'utility' projects like home automation gateways (Home Assistant) or light Linux-based servers
  • Handles older 'retro' games and 2D titles reasonably well (e.g., Minecraft, Stardew Valley, or PS1 emulation)

What customers don't like about Intel Celeron N3350

  • Extremely weak multitasking performance due to having only 2 cores and no Hyper-Threading
  • Prone to significant lagging and sluggishness, even during basic Windows 10 updates or when opening multiple browser tabs
  • Unsuitable for modern 3D gaming or CPU-intensive software like video editors and heavy compilers
  • Low base clock speed (1.1 GHz) often results in long loading times and a non-responsive user experience
  • Does not support AVX instructions, which prevents many modern applications and games from running at all
  • Performance is frequently bottlenecked by the low-speed eMMC storage often paired with this chip in budget devices

Verdict

The Intel Celeron N3350 is a dual-core entry-level processor from the Apollo Lake family, featuring a base clock speed of 1.1 GHz and a burst frequency of up to 2.4 GHz. Built on a 14nm process, it includes 2MB of L2 cache and integrated Intel HD Graphics 500 with 12 execution units. Its primary advantages are extreme energy efficiency, with a low Thermal Design Power (TDP) of just 6W, and a fanless design that allows for silent operation in budget laptops and mini PCs. However, the processor faces significant drawbacks, including very limited multitasking capabilities due to having only two threads, poor performance in modern gaming, and a tendency to struggle with intensive web browsing or high-resolution video playback.

Compare Intel Celeron N3350 with other processors

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

Graphic comparison of Intel Celeron N3350 and other processors

No results found