Celeron T3000 vs Athlon II X4 641
Primary details
Comparing Athlon II X4 641 and Celeron T3000 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2110 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Architecture codename | Llano (2011−2012) | no data |
| Release date | 6 February 2012 (12 years ago) | 1 April 2009 (15 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Athlon II X4 641 and Celeron T3000 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 1.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.8 GHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | no data |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 1 MB L2 Cache |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 228 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 1V-1.25V |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon II X4 641 and Celeron T3000 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.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | no data |
| Socket | FM1 | PGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon II X4 641 and Celeron T3000. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
| Status | no data | Discontinued |
Security technologies
Athlon II X4 641 and Celeron T3000 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon II X4 641 and Celeron T3000 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-x | no data | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon II X4 641 and Celeron T3000. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 6 February 2012 | 1 April 2009 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 35 Watt |
Athlon II X4 641 has an age advantage of 2 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 40.6% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron T3000, on the other hand, has 185.7% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Athlon II X4 641 and Celeron T3000. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Athlon II X4 641 is a desktop processor while Celeron T3000 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon II X4 641 and Celeron T3000, 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.
