Athlon 64 X2 5400+ vs Celeron Dual-Core T3000
Aggregate performance score
Athlon 64 X2 5400+ outperforms Celeron Dual-Core T3000 by a substantial 33% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Athlon 64 X2 5400+ processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2950 | 2815 |
| 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 | 0.61 |
| Architecture codename | Penryn-1M (2009) | Windsor (2006−2007) |
| Release date | 1 May 2009 (15 years ago) | December 2006 (17 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Athlon 64 X2 5400+ 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 | 1.8 GHz | 2.8 GHz |
| Bus rate | 800 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 64 KB | 256 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 90 nm |
| Die size | 107 mm2 | 220 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 410 Million | 154 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Athlon 64 X2 5400+ 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) | AM2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 89 Watt |
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.
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
| Performance score | 0.43 | 0.57 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 89 Watt |
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 has a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 154.3% lower power consumption.
Athlon 64 X2 5400+, on the other hand, has a 32.6% higher aggregate performance score.
The Athlon 64 X2 5400+ 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 Athlon 64 X2 5400+ is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Athlon 64 X2 5400+, 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.
