Celeron 925 vs E-300
Aggregate performance score
Celeron 925 outperforms E-300 by a considerable 43% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing E-300 and Celeron 925 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3199 | 3100 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | AMD E-Series | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.10 | 0.81 |
| Architecture codename | Zacate (2011−2013) | no data |
| Release date | 22 August 2011 (13 years ago) | 1 January 2011 (13 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
E-300 and Celeron 925 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) | no data |
| Threads | 2 | no data |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.3 GHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | no data |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 1 MB L2 Cache |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 75 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on E-300 and Celeron 925 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 | FT1 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by E-300 and Celeron 925. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SVM | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
Security technologies
E-300 and Celeron 925 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by E-300 and Celeron 925 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-x | no data | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by E-300 and Celeron 925. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon HD 6310 | no data |
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.21 | 0.30 |
| Recency | 22 August 2011 | 1 January 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 35 Watt |
E-300 has an age advantage of 7 months, a 12.5% more advanced lithography process, and 94.4% lower power consumption.
Celeron 925, on the other hand, has a 42.9% higher aggregate performance score.
The Celeron 925 is our recommended choice as it beats the E-300 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between E-300 and Celeron 925, 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.
