E2-3000 vs Celeron 430

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron 430
2007
1 core / 1 thread, 35 Watt
0.18
E2-3000
2013
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
0.45
+150%

E2-3000 outperforms Celeron 430 by a whopping 150% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron 430 and E2-3000 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking32632943
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Seriesno dataAMD E-Series
Power efficiency0.492.86
Architecture codenameConroe-L (2007−2008)Kabini (2013−2014)
Release dateJune 2007 (17 years ago)23 May 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$50no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron 430 and E2-3000 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 cores1 (Single-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads12
Base clock speed1.8 GHzno data
Boost clock speed1.8 GHz1.65 GHz
L1 cache64 KBno data
L2 cache512 KB1024 KB
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography65 nm28 nm
Die size77 mm2246 mm2
Maximum core temperature60 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data90 °C
Number of transistors105 million1,178 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage range1V-1.3375Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Celeron 430 and E2-3000 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
SocketLGA775FT3
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 430 and E2-3000. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno data86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX
AES-NI-+
FMA-FMA4
AVX-+
PowerNow-+
PowerGating-+
VirusProtect-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)-no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Idle States-no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Demand Based Switching-no data
FSB parity-no data

Security technologies

Celeron 430 and E2-3000 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 Celeron 430 and E2-3000 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d-no data
VT-x-no data
IOMMU 2.0-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 430 and E2-3000. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1, DDR2, DDR3DDR3
Max memory channelsno data1

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon HD 8280
Enduro-+
Switchable graphics-+
UVD-+
VCE-+

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron 430 and E2-3000 integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Celeron 430 and E2-3000 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno dataDirectX® 12
Vulkan-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 430 and E2-3000.

PCIe versionno data2.0

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 430 0.18
E2-3000 0.45
+150%

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 430 289
E2-3000 726
+151%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.18 0.45
Physical cores 1 2
Threads 1 2
Chip lithography 65 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 15 Watt

E2-3000 has a 150% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 133.3% lower power consumption.

The E2-3000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 430 in performance tests.

Note that Celeron 430 is a desktop processor while E2-3000 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 430 and E2-3000, 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 430
Celeron 430
AMD E2-3000
E2-3000

Other comparisons

We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.

Community ratings

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


2.6 160 votes

Rate Celeron 430 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 26 votes

Rate E2-3000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron 430 or E2-3000, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.