E-300 vs Celeron 2981U

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron 2981U
2014
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
0.65
+210%

Celeron 2981U outperforms E-300 by a whopping 210% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron 2981U and E-300 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking27473199
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel CeleronAMD E-Series
Power efficiency4.101.10
Architecture codenameHaswell (2013−2015)Zacate (2011−2013)
Release date1 January 2014 (10 years ago)22 August 2011 (13 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Celeron 2981U and E-300 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 cores2 (Dual-core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads22
Base clock speed1.6 GHzno data
Boost clock speed1.6 GHz1.3 GHz
Bus rate5 GT/sno data
L1 cache128 KB64K (per core)
L2 cache512 KB512K (per core)
L3 cache2 MB0 KB
Chip lithography22 nm40 nm
Die sizeno data75 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron 2981U and E-300 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 configuration11
SocketFCBGA1168FT1
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt18 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 2981U and E-300. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SVM
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Smart Response-no data
GPIO+no data
Smart Connect+no data
FDI-no data
AMT9.5no data
Matrix Storage-no data
HD Audio+no data
RST+no data

Security technologies

Celeron 2981U and E-300 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-no data
EDB+no data
Secure Key+no data
OS Guard-no data
Anti-Theft-no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 2981U and E-300 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++
VT-d-no data
VT-x+no data
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 2981U and E-300. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory size16 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth25.6 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
Intel HD Graphics for 4th Generation Intel ProcessorsAMD Radeon HD 6310
Quick Sync Video+-
Clear Video+no data
Graphics max frequency1 GHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron 2981U and E-300 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported3no data
eDP+no data
DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 2981U and E-300.

PCIe version2.0no data
PCI Express lanes12no data
PCI support-no data
USB revision3.0no data
Total number of SATA ports2no data
Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports2no data
Integrated IDE-no data
Number of USB ports4no data
Integrated LAN-no data
UART+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.

Celeron 2981U 0.65
+210%
E-300 0.21

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.

Celeron 2981U 1036
+206%
E-300 339

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.65 0.21
Integrated graphics card 0.77 0.32
Recency 1 January 2014 22 August 2011
Chip lithography 22 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 18 Watt

Celeron 2981U has a 209.5% higher aggregate performance score, 140.6% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 2 years, a 81.8% more advanced lithography process, and 20% lower power consumption.

The Celeron 2981U is our recommended choice as it beats the E-300 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 2981U and E-300, 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.


Intel Celeron 2981U
Celeron 2981U
AMD E-300
E-300

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.


3.3 7 votes

Rate Celeron 2981U on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.4 303 votes

Rate E-300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron 2981U or E-300, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.