Celeron T3300 vs Dual-Core T3100
Aggregate performance score
Celeron Dual-Core T3100 outperforms Celeron T3300 by an impressive 85% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron Dual-Core T3100 and Celeron T3300 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2665 | 2992 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron Dual-Core | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.00 | 1.08 |
| Architecture codename | Penryn (2008−2011) | no data |
| Release date | 1 September 2009 (15 years ago) | 1 January 2010 (14 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron Dual-Core T3100 and Celeron T3300 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) | no data |
| Threads | 2 | no data |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.9 GHz | no data |
| Bus rate | 800 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | no data |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | no data |
| L3 cache | no data | 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 T3100 and Celeron T3300 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 | BGA479, PGA478 | PGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3100 and Celeron T3300. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
Security technologies
Celeron Dual-Core T3100 and Celeron T3300 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 Dual-Core T3100 and Celeron T3300 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | 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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.74 | 0.40 |
| Recency | 1 September 2009 | 1 January 2010 |
Celeron Dual-Core T3100 has a 85% higher aggregate performance score.
Celeron T3300, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 months.
The Celeron Dual-Core T3100 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron T3300 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron Dual-Core T3100 and Celeron T3300, 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.
