Processor N100 vs Celeron Dual-Core T3100

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron Dual-Core T3100
2009
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.77
Processor N100
2023
4 cores / 4 threads, 6 Watt
2.44
+217%

Processor N100 outperforms Celeron Dual-Core T3100 by a whopping 217% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron Dual-Core T3100 and Processor N100 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking26591781
Place by popularitynot in top-10065
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel Celeron Dual-CoreIntel Alder Lake-N
Power efficiency2.0137.08
Architecture codenamePenryn (2008−2011)Alder Lake-N (2023)
Release date1 September 2009 (15 years ago)3 January 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$128

Detailed specifications

Celeron Dual-Core T3100 and Processor N100 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 cores2 (Dual-core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads24
Base clock speedno data0.1 GHz
Boost clock speed1.9 GHz3.4 GHz
Bus rate800 MHzno data
L1 cache128 KB96 KB (per core)
L2 cache1 MB2 MB (shared)
L3 cacheno data6 MB (shared)
Chip lithography45 nm10 nm
Die size107 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature105 °C105 °C
Number of transistors410 Millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on Celeron Dual-Core T3100 and Processor N100 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 configurationno data1
SocketBGA479, PGA478Intel BGA 1264
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt6 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3100 and Processor N100. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI-+
FMA-+
AVX-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+

Security technologies

Celeron Dual-Core T3100 and Processor N100 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3100 and Processor N100 are enumerated here.

VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3100 and Processor N100. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR4, DDR5

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataIntel UHD Graphics 24EUs (Alder Lake-N)

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3100 and Processor N100.

PCIe versionno data3.0
PCI Express lanesno data9

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 T3100 0.77
Processor N100 2.44
+217%

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

Celeron Dual-Core T3100 1900
Processor N100 4869
+156%

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

Celeron Dual-Core T3100 3740
Processor N100 11207
+200%

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.

Celeron Dual-Core T3100 1687
Processor N100 4838
+187%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.77 2.44
Recency 1 September 2009 3 January 2023
Physical cores 2 4
Threads 2 4
Chip lithography 45 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 6 Watt

Processor N100 has a 216.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 350% more advanced lithography process, and 483.3% lower power consumption.

The Processor N100 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron Dual-Core T3100 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron Dual-Core T3100 and Processor N100, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Celeron Dual-Core T3100
Celeron Dual-Core T3100
Intel Processor N100
Processor N100

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.5 33 votes

Rate Celeron Dual-Core T3100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 1194 votes

Rate Processor N100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron Dual-Core T3100 or Processor N100, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.