A4-3320M vs Celeron Dual-Core T3000

Aggregate performance score

Celeron Dual-Core T3000
2009
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.43
+2.4%
A4-3320M
2011
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.42

Celeron Dual-Core T3000 outperforms A4-3320M by a minimal 2% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and A4-3320M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking29502970
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel Celeron Dual-CoreAMD A-Series
Power efficiency1.161.14
Architecture codenamePenryn-1M (2009)Llano (2011−2012)
Release date1 May 2009 (15 years ago)20 December 2011 (12 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and A4-3320M 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 speedno data2 GHz
Boost clock speed1.8 GHz2.6 GHz
Bus rate800 MHzno data
L1 cache64 KB128 KB (per core)
L2 cache1 MB1 MB (per core)
L3 cacheno data0 KB
Chip lithography45 nm32 nm
Die size107 mm2228 mm2
Maximum core temperature105 °Cno data
Number of transistors410 Million1,178 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and A4-3320M 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 configurationno data1
SocketP (478)FS1
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and A4-3320M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno data3DNow!, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a, Radeon HD 6480G

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and A4-3320M are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and A4-3320M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR3

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon HD 6480G (444 MHz)

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 Dual-Core T3000 0.43
+2.4%
A4-3320M 0.42

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 Dual-Core T3000 687
+2.8%
A4-3320M 668

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.43 0.42
Recency 1 May 2009 20 December 2011
Chip lithography 45 nm 32 nm

Celeron Dual-Core T3000 has a 2.4% higher aggregate performance score.

A4-3320M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, and a 40.6% more advanced lithography process.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and A4-3320M.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and A4-3320M, 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 Dual-Core T3000
Celeron Dual-Core T3000
AMD A4-3320M
A4-3320M

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.


2.9 61 vote

Rate Celeron Dual-Core T3000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.4 9 votes

Rate A4-3320M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron Dual-Core T3000 or A4-3320M, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.