E2-3200 vs Celeron Dual-Core T3000
Aggregate performance score
E2-3200 outperforms Celeron Dual-Core T3000 by an impressive 56% 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 | 3288 | 3079 |
| 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 | no data | 0.93 |
| Designer | Intel | AMD |
| Architecture codename | Penryn-1M (2009) | Llano (2011−2012) |
| Release date | 1 May 2009 (16 years ago) | 7 September 2011 (14 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and E2-3200 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 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.4 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 | 512 KB (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 E2-3200 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) | 1 MB | 65 Watt |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and E2-3200 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and E2-3200. 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 6370D |
Synthetic benchmarks
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 | 0.36 | 0.56 |
| Recency | 1 May 2009 | 7 September 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 1 Watt | 65 Watt |
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 has 6400% lower power consumption.
E2-3200, on the other hand, has a 55.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 40.6% more advanced lithography process.
The AMD E2-3200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Celeron Dual-Core T3000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Celeron Dual-Core T3000 is a notebook processor while E2-3200 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.
