Celeron Dual-Core T3300 vs Athlon 64 TF-20
Aggregate performance score
Celeron Dual-Core T3300 outperforms Athlon 64 TF-20 by a whopping 150% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Athlon 64 TF-20 and Celeron Dual-Core T3300 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3300 | 3006 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | AMD Athlon 64 | Intel Celeron Dual-Core |
| Power efficiency | 0.61 | 1.08 |
| Architecture codename | Sherman (2009) | Penryn (2008−2011) |
| Release date | 1 May 2009 (15 years ago) | 1 February 2010 (14 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Athlon 64 TF-20 and Celeron Dual-Core T3300 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 1 (Single-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 1 | 2 |
| Boost clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 667 MHz | 800 MHz |
| L1 cache | 0.1 MB | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 1 MB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 95 °C | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon 64 TF-20 and Celeron Dual-Core T3300 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Socket | S1g1 | Socket P 478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 64 TF-20 and Celeron Dual-Core T3300. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX, 3DNow!, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, AMD64, Enhanced Virus Protection | no data |
| VirusProtect | + | - |
Security technologies
Athlon 64 TF-20 and Celeron Dual-Core T3300 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | no data | + |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.16 | 0.40 |
| Recency | 1 May 2009 | 1 February 2010 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 2 |
| Threads | 1 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 35 Watt |
Athlon 64 TF-20 has 40% lower power consumption.
Celeron Dual-Core T3300, on the other hand, has a 150% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 months, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.
The Celeron Dual-Core T3300 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon 64 TF-20 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 64 TF-20 and Celeron Dual-Core T3300, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
