Celeron 1000M vs FX-6300
Aggregate performance score
FX-6300 outperforms Celeron 1000M by a whopping 288% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing FX-6300 and Celeron 1000M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1732 | 2747 |
| Place by popularity | 58 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.64 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 2.59 | 1.81 |
| Architecture codename | Vishera (2012−2015) | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) |
| Release date | 23 October 2012 (12 years ago) | 20 January 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $132 | $86 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
FX-6300 and Celeron 1000M 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 | 6 (Hexa-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 6 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 3.5 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 1.8 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 5 GT/s |
| L1 cache | 288 KB | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 6144 KB | 256K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 8192 KB | 2 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | 315 mm2 | 118 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 71 °C | 105 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | 1,400 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| P0 Vcore voltage | Min: 1.15 V - Max: 1.3875 V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on FX-6300 and Celeron 1000M 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 | 1 |
| Socket | AM3+ | G2 (988B) |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-6300 and Celeron 1000M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
Security technologies
FX-6300 and Celeron 1000M technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-6300 and Celeron 1000M are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-6300 and Celeron 1000M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3-1866 | DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) (650 - 1000 MHz) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-6300 and Celeron 1000M.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 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.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.60 | 0.67 |
| Recency | 23 October 2012 | 20 January 2013 |
| Physical cores | 6 | 2 |
| Threads | 6 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 35 Watt |
FX-6300 has a 288.1% higher aggregate performance score, and 200% more physical cores and 200% more threads.
Celeron 1000M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 months, a 45.5% more advanced lithography process, and 171.4% lower power consumption.
The FX-6300 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 1000M in performance tests.
Note that FX-6300 is a desktop processor while Celeron 1000M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between FX-6300 and Celeron 1000M, 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.
