Athlon XP 2800+ vs Celeron Dual-Core T3000
Aggregate performance score
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 outperforms Athlon XP 2800+ by a whopping 144% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3186 | 3466 |
| 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 | 0.43 | 0.08 |
| Designer | Intel | AMD |
| Architecture codename | Penryn-1M (2009) | Barton (2001−2004) |
| Release date | 1 May 2009 (16 years ago) | January 2001 (24 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Athlon XP 2800+ 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) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Boost clock speed | 1.8 GHz | 2.25 GHz |
| Bus rate | 800 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 64 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 512K |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 130 nm |
| Die size | 107 mm2 | 101 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 410 Million | 63 million |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Athlon XP 2800+ 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) | A |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 74 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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.39 | 0.16 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 1 |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 74 Watt |
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 has a 143.8% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 188.9% more advanced lithography process, and 111.4% lower power consumption.
The Intel Celeron Dual-Core T3000 is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD Athlon XP 2800+ in performance tests.
Be aware that Celeron Dual-Core T3000 is a notebook processor while Athlon XP 2800+ is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
