A6-3500 vs Celeron Dual-Core T3000

Place in the ranking	2950	2536
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop processor
Series	Intel Celeron Dual-Core	no data
Power efficiency	1.16	1.30
Architecture codename	Penryn-1M (2009)	Llano (2011−2012)
Release date	1 May 2009 (15 years ago)	17 August 2011 (13 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and A6-3500 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)	3 (Tri-Core)
Threads	2	3
Base clock speed	no data	2.1 GHz
Boost clock speed	1.8 GHz	2.4 GHz
Bus rate	800 MHz	no data
L1 cache	64 KB	128 KB (per core)
L2 cache	1 MB	1 MB (per core)
L3 cache	no data	0 KB
Chip lithography	45 nm	32 nm
Die size	107 mm²	228 mm²
Maximum core temperature	105 °C	no data
Number of transistors	410 Million	1,178 million
64 bit support	+	+
Windows 11 compatibility	-	-

Compatibility

Information on Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and A6-3500 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	no data	1
Socket	P (478)	FM1
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	65 Watt

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and A6-3500 are enumerated here.

AMD-V

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and A6-3500. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory types

no data

DDR3

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card

no data

Radeon HD 6530D

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

A6-3500 0.89
+107%

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

A6-3500 1420
+107%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.43	0.89
Recency	1 May 2009	17 August 2011
Physical cores	2	3
Threads	2	3
Chip lithography	45 nm	32 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	65 Watt

Celeron Dual-Core T3000 has 85.7% lower power consumption.

A6-3500, on the other hand, has a 107% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, 50% more physical cores and 50% more threads, and a 40.6% more advanced lithography process.

The A6-3500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Celeron Dual-Core T3000 is a notebook processor while A6-3500 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and A6-3500, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.