A4-1200 vs Celeron Dual-Core T3000

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron Dual-Core T3000
2009
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.43
+87%
A4-1200
2013
2 cores / 2 threads, 4 Watt
0.23

Celeron Dual-Core T3000 outperforms A4-1200 by an impressive 87% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and A4-1200 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking30113232
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel Celeron Dual-CoreAMD A-Series
Power efficiency1.175.48
Architecture codenamePenryn-1M (2009)Temash (2013)
Release date1 May 2009 (15 years ago)23 May 2013 (11 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and A4-1200 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 cores2 (Dual-core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads22
Boost clock speed1.8 GHz1 GHz
Bus rate800 MHzno data
L1 cache64 KB128K (per core)
L2 cache1 MB512K (per core)
L3 cacheno data0 KB
Chip lithography45 nm32 nm
Die size107 mm2246 mm2
Maximum core temperature105 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data90 °C
Number of transistors410 Million1,178 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and A4-1200 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 configurationno data1
SocketP (478)FT3
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt4 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and A4-1200. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno data86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX
AES-NI-+
AVX-+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and A4-1200 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and A4-1200. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR3

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon HD 8180 (225 MHz)

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.

Celeron Dual-Core T3000 0.43
+87%
A4-1200 0.23

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.

Celeron Dual-Core T3000 687
+86.2%
A4-1200 369

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.

Celeron Dual-Core T3000 1797
+155%
A4-1200 706

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.

Celeron Dual-Core T3000 3329
+167%
A4-1200 1248

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.

Celeron Dual-Core T3000 1593
+117%
A4-1200 733

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

Celeron Dual-Core T3000 45.65
+145%
A4-1200 111.9

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.43 0.23
Recency 1 May 2009 23 May 2013
Chip lithography 45 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 4 Watt

Celeron Dual-Core T3000 has a 87% higher aggregate performance score.

A4-1200, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 40.6% more advanced lithography process, and 775% lower power consumption.

The Celeron Dual-Core T3000 is our recommended choice as it beats the A4-1200 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and A4-1200, 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.


Intel Celeron Dual-Core T3000
Celeron Dual-Core T3000
AMD A4-1200
A4-1200

Other comparisons

We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.

Community ratings

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


2.9 61 vote

Rate Celeron Dual-Core T3000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.6 42 votes

Rate A4-1200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron Dual-Core T3000 or A4-1200, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.