Celeron T3000 vs Athlon II X4 641

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Athlon II X4 641
2012
4 cores / 4 threads, 100 Watt
1.46
+240%
Celeron T3000
2009
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.43

Athlon II X4 641 outperforms Celeron T3000 by a whopping 240% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Athlon II X4 641 and Celeron T3000 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking21802967
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Power efficiency1.381.16
Architecture codenameLlano (2011−2012)no data
Release date6 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speed2.8 GHz1.8 GHz
Boost clock speed2.8 GHzno data
L1 cache128 KB (per core)no data
L2 cache1 MB (per core)no data
L3 cache0 KB1 MB L2 Cache
Chip lithography32 nm45 nm
Die size228 mm2no data
Maximum core temperatureno data105 °C
Number of transistors1,178 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage rangeno data1V-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 configuration1no data
SocketFM1PGA478
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt35 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 Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Demand Based Switchingno data-

Security technologies

Athlon II X4 641 and Celeron T3000 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon II X4 641 and Celeron T3000 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-xno 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 typesDDR3no 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.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Athlon II X4 641 1.46
+240%
Celeron T3000 0.43

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.

Athlon II X4 641 2313
+237%
Celeron T3000 687

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.

Athlon II X4 641 374
+66.2%
Celeron T3000 225

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.

Athlon II X4 641 1256
+227%
Celeron T3000 384

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.46 0.43
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 a 239.5% higher aggregate performance score, 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.

The Athlon II X4 641 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron T3000 in performance tests.

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.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD Athlon II X4 641
Athlon II X4 641
Intel Celeron T3000
Celeron T3000

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.7 147 votes

Rate Athlon II X4 641 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 2 votes

Rate Celeron T3000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Athlon II X4 641 or Celeron T3000, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.