E1-6010 vs Celeron Dual-Core T3500
Primary details
Comparing Celeron Dual-Core T3500 and E1-6010 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2491 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron Dual-Core | AMD E-Series |
| Architecture codename | Penryn (2008−2011) | Beema (2014) |
| Release date | 26 September 2010 (13 years ago) | 29 April 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $80 | no data |
| Current price | $27 (0.3x MSRP) | $314 |
Detailed specifications
Celeron Dual-Core T3500 and E1-6010 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 | 2.1 GHz | 1.35 GHz |
| Bus support | 800 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | no data |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 1024 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 28 nm |
| Die size | 107 mm2 | no data |
| Number of transistors | 410 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron Dual-Core T3500 and E1-6010 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 | Socket P PGA478 | FT3b |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 10 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3500 and E1-6010. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | 86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX, Single-Channel DDR3L-1333 |
| AES-NI | no data | + |
| FMA | no data | FMA4 |
| AVX | no data | + |
| PowerTune | no data | - |
| TrueAudio | no data | - |
| PowerNow | no data | + |
| PowerGating | no data | + |
| Out-of-band client management | no data | - |
| VirusProtect | no data | + |
Security technologies
Celeron Dual-Core T3500 and E1-6010 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3500 and E1-6010 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | 1 |
| IOMMU 2.0 | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3500 and E1-6010. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 |
| Max memory channels | no data | 1 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon R2 Graphics |
| Enduro | no data | + |
| Switchable graphics | no data | 1 |
| UVD | no data | + |
| VCE | no data | + |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron Dual-Core T3500 and E1-6010 integrated GPUs.
| DisplayPort | no data | + |
| HDMI | no data | + |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3500 and E1-6010 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | DirectX® 12 |
| Vulkan | no data | 1 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3500 and E1-6010.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Celeron Dual-Core T3500 outperforms E1-6010 by 139% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 20%
Celeron Dual-Core T3500 outperforms E1-6010 by 105% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 19%
Celeron Dual-Core T3500 outperforms E1-6010 by 130% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 19%
Celeron Dual-Core T3500 outperforms E1-6010 by 90% in 3DMark06 CPU.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 18%
E1-6010 outperforms Celeron Dual-Core T3500 by 149% in wPrime 32.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 26 September 2010 | 29 April 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 10 Watt |
We couldn't decide between Celeron Dual-Core T3500 and E1-6010. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron Dual-Core T3500 and E1-6010, 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.
