Celeron Dual-Core T3100 vs Phenom II X4 N930

Aggregate performance score

Phenom II X4 N930
2010
4 cores / 4 threads, 35 Watt
1.01
+32.9%
Celeron Dual-Core T3100
2009
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.76

Phenom II X4 N930 outperforms Celeron Dual-Core T3100 by a substantial 33% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Phenom II X4 N930 and Celeron Dual-Core T3100 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking24302622
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Series4x AMD Phenom IIIntel Celeron Dual-Core
Architecture codenameChamplain (2010−2011)Penryn (2008−2011)
Release date12 May 2010 (14 years ago)1 September 2009 (15 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Phenom II X4 N930 and Celeron Dual-Core T3100 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Boost clock speed2 GHz1.9 GHz
Bus rate3600 MHz800 MHz
L1 cache512 KB128 KB
L2 cache2 MB1 MB
Chip lithography45 nm45 nm
Die sizeno data107 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data105 °C
Number of transistorsno data410 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Phenom II X4 N930 and Celeron Dual-Core T3100 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.

SocketS1BGA479, PGA478
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Phenom II X4 N930 and Celeron Dual-Core T3100. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsMMX, 3dNow!, SSE (2,3,4A), AMD64, Enhanced Virus Protection, Vurtualization, HyperTransport 3.0no data
VirusProtect+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Phenom II X4 N930 and Celeron Dual-Core T3100. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3no 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.

Phenom II X4 N930 1.01
+32.9%
Celeron Dual-Core T3100 0.76

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.

Phenom II X4 N930 1558
+32.7%
Celeron Dual-Core T3100 1174

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.

Phenom II X4 N930 1738
Celeron Dual-Core T3100 1900
+9.3%

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.

Phenom II X4 N930 6319
+68.9%
Celeron Dual-Core T3100 3740

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.

Phenom II X4 N930 2831
+67.8%
Celeron Dual-Core T3100 1687

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.01 0.76
Recency 12 May 2010 1 September 2009
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2

Phenom II X4 N930 has a 32.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 months, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

The Phenom II X4 N930 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron Dual-Core T3100 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Phenom II X4 N930 and Celeron Dual-Core T3100, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD Phenom II X4 N930
Phenom II X4 N930
Intel Celeron Dual-Core T3100
Celeron Dual-Core T3100

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.8 99 votes

Rate Phenom II X4 N930 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 33 votes

Rate Celeron Dual-Core T3100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Phenom II X4 N930 or Celeron Dual-Core T3100, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.