Celeron Dual-Core T3300 vs Athlon II X4 645
Primary details
Comparing Athlon II X4 645 and Celeron Dual-Core T3300 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2152 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.30 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Celeron Dual-Core |
| Power efficiency | 1.48 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Propus (2009−2011) | Penryn (2008−2011) |
| Release date | 21 September 2010 (14 years ago) | 1 February 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $80 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Athlon II X4 645 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 3.1 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 3.1 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 800 MHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 169 mm2 | no data |
| Number of transistors | 300 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon II X4 645 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.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | no data |
| Socket | AM3 | Socket P 478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 35 Watt |
Security technologies
Athlon II X4 645 and Celeron Dual-Core T3300 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon II X4 645 and Celeron Dual-Core T3300. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon II X4 645 and Celeron Dual-Core T3300.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 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.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 21 September 2010 | 1 February 2010 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 35 Watt |
Athlon II X4 645 has an age advantage of 7 months, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Celeron Dual-Core T3300, on the other hand, has 171.4% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Athlon II X4 645 and Celeron Dual-Core T3300. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Athlon II X4 645 is a desktop processor while Celeron Dual-Core T3300 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon II X4 645 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.
