Athlon 64 X2 TK-53 vs Celeron Dual-Core T3000
Aggregate performance score
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 outperforms Athlon 64 X2 TK-53 by a significant 23% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Athlon 64 X2 TK-53 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2950 | 3043 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron Dual-Core | 2x Athlon 64 |
| Power efficiency | 1.16 | 1.07 |
| Architecture codename | Penryn-1M (2009) | Hawk-256 |
| Release date | 1 May 2009 (15 years ago) | no data (2024 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Athlon 64 X2 TK-53 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 | 1.7 GHz |
| Bus rate | 800 MHz | 667 MHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB | no data |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 65 nm |
| Die size | 107 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 410 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Athlon 64 X2 TK-53 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 | P (478) | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 31 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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.43 | 0.35 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 31 Watt |
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 has a 22.9% higher aggregate performance score, and a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.
Athlon 64 X2 TK-53, on the other hand, has 12.9% lower power consumption.
The Celeron Dual-Core T3000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon 64 X2 TK-53 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Athlon 64 X2 TK-53, 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.
