Celeron M 530 vs E2-3000M
Aggregate performance score
E2-3000M outperforms Celeron M 530 by a whopping 111% 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 | 3236 | 3483 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | AMD E-Series | Celeron M |
| Power efficiency | 0.46 | 0.25 |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Architecture codename | Llano (2011−2012) | Merom (2006−2008) |
| Release date | 20 December 2011 (13 years ago) | no data |
Detailed specifications
E2-3000M 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 | 1.8 GHz | 1.73 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 1.73 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 533 MHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | no data |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 1 MB L2 Cache |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 65 nm |
| Die size | 228 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 0.95V-1.3V |
Compatibility
Information on E2-3000M 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 | FS1 | PBGA479,PPGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 30 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by E2-3000M and Celeron M 530. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | SSE4.1/2, 3DNow, Radeon HD 6380G | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | - |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
| FSB parity | no data | - |
Security technologies
E2-3000M and Celeron M 530 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 E2-3000M and Celeron M 530 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-x | no data | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by E2-3000M and Celeron M 530. 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 6380G | 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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.38 | 0.18 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 1 |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 30 Watt |
E2-3000M has a 111.1% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 103.1% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron M 530, on the other hand, has 16.7% lower power consumption.
The AMD E2-3000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Celeron M 530 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
