Celeron M 530 vs E3200
Aggregate performance score
Celeron E3200 outperforms Celeron M 530 by a whopping 183% 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 | 3105 | 3501 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.88 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Celeron M |
| Power efficiency | 0.33 | 0.25 |
| Designer | Intel | Intel |
| Manufacturer | Intel | no data |
| Architecture codename | Wolfdale (2008−2010) | Merom (2006−2008) |
| Release date | 30 August 2009 (16 years ago) | no data |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $52 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Celeron E3200 and Celeron M 530 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 |
| Base clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 1.73 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 1.73 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 533 MHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (shared) | no data |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 1 MB L2 Cache |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 65 nm |
| Die size | 82 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 74 °C | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 228 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 0.85V-1.3625V | 0.95V-1.3V |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron E3200 and Celeron M 530 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 | 1 | no data |
| Socket | LGA775 | PBGA479,PPGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 30 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron E3200 and Celeron M 530. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | - |
| Idle States | + | - |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
| FSB parity | no data | - |
Security technologies
Celeron E3200 and Celeron M 530 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | - |
| EDB | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron E3200 and Celeron M 530 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | - | no data |
| VT-x | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron E3200 and Celeron M 530. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron E3200 and Celeron M 530.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | no data |
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 | 0.51 | 0.18 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 1 |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 30 Watt |
Celeron E3200 has a 183.3% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron M 530, on the other hand, has 116.7% lower power consumption.
The Intel Celeron E3200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Celeron M 530 in performance tests.
Note that Celeron E3200 is a desktop processor while Celeron M 530 is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
