Celeron T3300 vs Athlon 64 X2 TK-57
Aggregate performance score
Celeron T3300 outperforms Athlon 64 X2 TK-57 by a minimal 3% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Athlon 64 X2 TK-57 and Celeron T3300 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3027 | 3012 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | 2x Athlon 64 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.20 | 1.09 |
| Architecture codename | Hawk-256 | no data |
| Release date | no data | 1 January 2010 (15 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Athlon 64 X2 TK-57 and Celeron T3300 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 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.9 GHz | no data |
| Bus rate | 667 MHz | no data |
| L3 cache | no data | 1 MB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon 64 X2 TK-57 and Celeron T3300 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.
| Socket | no data | PGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 31 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 64 X2 TK-57 and Celeron T3300. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
Security technologies
Athlon 64 X2 TK-57 and Celeron T3300 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 Athlon 64 X2 TK-57 and Celeron T3300 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | 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 | 0.39 | 0.40 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 31 Watt | 35 Watt |
Athlon 64 X2 TK-57 has 12.9% lower power consumption.
Celeron T3300, on the other hand, has a 2.6% higher aggregate performance score, and a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Athlon 64 X2 TK-57 and Celeron T3300.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 64 X2 TK-57 and Celeron T3300, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
