Celeron 4305U vs Athlon 64 3000+
Primary details
Comparing Athlon 64 3000+ and Celeron 4305U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 2376 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | no data | 7.19 |
| Architecture codename | Clawhammer (2001−2005) | Whiskey Lake-U (2018−2019) |
| Release date | January 2001 (23 years ago) | 16 April 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $65 | $107 |
Detailed specifications
Athlon 64 3000+ and Celeron 4305U 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 | 1 (Single-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 1 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2 GHz | 2.2 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | OPI |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 22 |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 512K | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 2 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 193 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 154 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon 64 3000+ and Celeron 4305U 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 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | 754 | FCBGA1528 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 89 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 64 3000+ and Celeron 4305U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| My WiFi | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | + |
| Smart Response | no data | + |
Security technologies
Athlon 64 3000+ and Celeron 4305U technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| Identity Protection | - | + |
| SGX | no data | Yes with Intel® ME |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon 64 3000+ and Celeron 4305U are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon 64 3000+ and Celeron 4305U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4-2133, LPDDR3-1866 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 38.397 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel® UHD Graphics for 8th Generation Intel® Processors |
| Max video memory | no data | 32 GB |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Clear Video | no data | + |
| Clear Video HD | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 900 MHz |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Athlon 64 3000+ and Celeron 4305U integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
| eDP | no data | + |
| DisplayPort | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| DVI | no data | + |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Athlon 64 3000+ and Celeron 4305U integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| 4K resolution support | no data | + |
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | no data | 4096x2304@24Hz |
| Max resolution over eDP | no data | 4096x2304@60Hz |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | no data | 4096x2304@60Hz |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Athlon 64 3000+ and Celeron 4305U integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 12 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon 64 3000+ and Celeron 4305U.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
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
| Physical cores | 1 | 2 |
| Threads | 1 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 89 Watt | 15 Watt |
Celeron 4305U has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 828.6% more advanced lithography process, and 493.3% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Athlon 64 3000+ and Celeron 4305U. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Athlon 64 3000+ is a desktop processor while Celeron 4305U is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 64 3000+ and Celeron 4305U, 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.
