Celeron Dual-Core T3000 vs Athlon X2 QL-66
Aggregate performance score
Athlon X2 QL-66 outperforms Celeron Dual-Core T3000 by a minimal 3% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Athlon X2 QL-66 and Celeron Dual-Core T3000 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3056 | 3067 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | 2x AMD Athlon | Intel Celeron Dual-Core |
| Power efficiency | 1.09 | 1.06 |
| Architecture codename | Lion (2008−2009) | Penryn-1M (2009) |
| Release date | 1 September 2009 (15 years ago) | 1 May 2009 (15 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Athlon X2 QL-66 and Celeron Dual-Core 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 2 |
| Boost clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 1.8 GHz |
| Bus rate | 3600 MHz | 800 MHz |
| L1 cache | 256 KB | 64 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | no data | 107 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 410 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon X2 QL-66 and Celeron Dual-Core 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.
| Socket | S1g2 | P (478) |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon X2 QL-66 and Celeron Dual-Core T3000. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, Enhanced 3DNow!, NX bit, AMD64, PowerNow!, AMD Virtualization | no data |
| PowerNow | + | - |
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.
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.
Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core
Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.
Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.
3DMark06 CPU
3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.40 | 0.39 |
| Recency | 1 September 2009 | 1 May 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
Athlon X2 QL-66 has a 2.6% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 4 months.
Celeron Dual-Core T3000, on the other hand, has a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Athlon X2 QL-66 and Celeron Dual-Core T3000.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
