Celeron SU2300 vs E3300

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron E3300
2009
2 cores / 2 threads, 65 Watt
0.50
+66.7%

Celeron E3300 outperforms Celeron SU2300 by an impressive 67% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron E3300 and Celeron SU2300 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking28923112
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.83no data
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Power efficiency0.732.84
Architecture codenameWolfdale (2008−2010)no data
Release date30 August 2009 (15 years ago)1 July 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$70no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron E3300 and Celeron SU2300 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)no data
Threads2no data
Base clock speed2.5 GHz1.2 GHz
Boost clock speed2.5 GHzno data
L1 cache64 KB (per core)no data
L2 cache1 MB (shared)no data
L3 cache0 KB1 MB
Chip lithography45 nm45 nm
Die size82 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature74 °C100 °C
Number of transistors228 millionno data
64 bit support+-
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage range0.85V-1.3625Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Celeron E3300 and Celeron SU2300 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 configuration1no data
SocketLGA775BGA956
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt10 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron E3300 and Celeron SU2300. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology--
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring++

Security technologies

Celeron E3300 and Celeron SU2300 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT--
EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron E3300 and Celeron SU2300 are enumerated here.

VT-d-no data
VT-x++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron E3300 and Celeron SU2300. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1, DDR2, DDR3no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron E3300 and Celeron SU2300.

PCIe version2.0no 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 E3300 0.50
+66.7%
Celeron SU2300 0.30

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 E3300 795
+64.9%
Celeron SU2300 482

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Celeron E3300 245
+53.1%
Celeron SU2300 160

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Celeron E3300 395
+42.1%
Celeron SU2300 278

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.50 0.30
Recency 30 August 2009 1 July 2009
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 10 Watt

Celeron E3300 has a 66.7% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 month.

Celeron SU2300, on the other hand, has 550% lower power consumption.

The Celeron E3300 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron SU2300 in performance tests.

Note that Celeron E3300 is a desktop processor while Celeron SU2300 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron E3300 and Celeron SU2300, 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 E3300
Celeron E3300
Intel Celeron SU2300
Celeron SU2300

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.


3.3 178 votes

Rate Celeron E3300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.7 3 votes

Rate Celeron SU2300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron E3300 or Celeron SU2300, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.