A6-7310 vs Celeron Dual-Core T3100

Aggregate performance score

Celeron Dual-Core T3100
2009
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.74
A6-7310
2015
4 cores / 4 threads, 12 Watt
1.69
+128%

A6-7310 outperforms Celeron Dual-Core T3100 by a whopping 128% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron Dual-Core T3100 and A6-7310 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking26652048
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel Celeron Dual-CoreAMD A-Series
Power efficiency2.006.40
Architecture codenamePenryn (2008−2011)Carrizo-L (2015)
Release date1 September 2009 (15 years ago)7 May 2015 (9 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Celeron Dual-Core T3100 and A6-7310 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)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads24
Base clock speedno data2 GHz
Boost clock speed1.9 GHz2.4 GHz
Bus rate800 MHzno data
L1 cache128 KBno data
L2 cache1 MB2048 KB
Chip lithography45 nm28 nm
Die size107 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature105 °C90 °C
Number of transistors410 Million930 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron Dual-Core T3100 and A6-7310 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.

SocketBGA479, PGA478FP4
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt12-25 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3100 and A6-7310. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataMMX, SSE4.2, AES, AVX, BMI1, F16C, AMD64, VT
AES-NI-+
FMA-FMA4
AVX-+
PowerNow-+
PowerGating-+
VirusProtect-+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3100 and A6-7310 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
IOMMU 2.0-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3100 and A6-7310. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR3L-1866
Max memory channelsno data1

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon R4 Graphics
Enduro-+
Switchable graphics-+
UVD-+
VCE-+

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron Dual-Core T3100 and A6-7310 integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3100 and A6-7310 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno dataDirectX® 12
Vulkan-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3100 and A6-7310.

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 Dual-Core T3100 0.74
A6-7310 1.69
+128%

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 T3100 1174
A6-7310 2689
+129%

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.

Celeron Dual-Core T3100 1900
+5.5%
A6-7310 1801

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.

Celeron Dual-Core T3100 3740
A6-7310 5075
+35.7%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.74 1.69
Recency 1 September 2009 7 May 2015
Physical cores 2 4
Threads 2 4
Chip lithography 45 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 12 Watt

A6-7310 has a 128.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 60.7% more advanced lithography process, and 191.7% lower power consumption.

The A6-7310 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron Dual-Core T3100 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron Dual-Core T3100 and A6-7310, 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 T3100
Celeron Dual-Core T3100
AMD A6-7310
A6-7310

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.


3.5 33 votes

Rate Celeron Dual-Core T3100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 510 votes

Rate A6-7310 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron Dual-Core T3100 or A6-7310, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.