Athlon II M320 vs Celeron Dual-Core T3000
Aggregate performance score
Athlon II M320 outperforms Celeron Dual-Core T3000 by a small 9% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Athlon II M320 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2966 | 2925 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron Dual-Core | AMD Athlon II |
| Power efficiency | 1.16 | 1.27 |
| Architecture codename | Penryn-1M (2009) | Caspian (2009) |
| Release date | 1 May 2009 (15 years ago) | 10 September 2009 (15 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Athlon II M320 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) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 2 |
| Boost clock speed | 1.8 GHz | 2.1 GHz |
| Bus rate | 800 MHz | 3200 MHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 107 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 410 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Athlon II M320 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 | P (478) | Socket S1 (S1g3) |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Athlon II M320. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, Enhanced 3DNow!, NX bit, AMD64, PowerNow!, AMD Virtualization |
| PowerNow | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Athlon II M320. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR2 |
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.
Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core
Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.
Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.
3DMark06 CPU
3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.
wPrime 32
wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.43 | 0.47 |
| Recency | 1 May 2009 | 10 September 2009 |
Athlon II M320 has a 9.3% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 4 months.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Athlon II M320.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Athlon II M320, 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.
