Celeron Dual-Core T3000 vs Dual-Core T3500

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron Dual-Core T3500
2010
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.80
+86%
Celeron Dual-Core T3000
2009
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.43

Celeron Dual-Core T3500 outperforms Celeron Dual-Core T3000 by an impressive 86% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron Dual-Core T3500 and Celeron Dual-Core T3000 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking26152965
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel Celeron Dual-CoreIntel Celeron Dual-Core
Power efficiency2.151.16
Architecture codenamePenryn (2008−2011)Penryn-1M (2009)
Release date26 September 2010 (14 years ago)1 May 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$80no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron Dual-Core T3500 and Celeron Dual-Core T3000 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
Boost clock speed2.1 GHz1.8 GHz
Bus rate800 MHz800 MHz
L1 cache128 KB64 KB
L2 cache1 MB1 MB
Chip lithography45 nm45 nm
Die size107 mm2107 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data105 °C
Number of transistors410 Million410 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron Dual-Core T3500 and Celeron Dual-Core T3000 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.

SocketSocket P PGA478P (478)
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt35 Watt

Security technologies

Celeron Dual-Core T3500 and Celeron Dual-Core T3000 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDB+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.

Celeron Dual-Core T3500 0.80
+86%
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 0.43

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 T3500 1275
+85.6%
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 687

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 T3500 2063
+14.8%
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 1797

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 T3500 4098
+23.1%
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 3329

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.

Celeron Dual-Core T3500 1760
+10.5%
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 1593

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.

Celeron Dual-Core T3500 38.5
+18.6%
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 45.65

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.80 0.43
Recency 26 September 2010 1 May 2009

Celeron Dual-Core T3500 has a 86% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.

The Celeron Dual-Core T3500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron Dual-Core T3500 and Celeron Dual-Core T3000, 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 T3500
Celeron Dual-Core T3500
Intel Celeron Dual-Core T3000
Celeron Dual-Core T3000

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.


3.1 105 votes

Rate Celeron Dual-Core T3500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 61 vote

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron Dual-Core T3500 or Celeron Dual-Core T3000, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.