Celeron Dual-Core T3000 vs M 550
Aggregate performance score
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 outperforms Celeron M 550 by a considerable 48% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 550 and Celeron Dual-Core T3000 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3123 | 2966 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Celeron M | Intel Celeron Dual-Core |
| Power efficiency | 0.91 | 1.16 |
| Architecture codename | Merom (2006−2008) | Penryn-1M (2009) |
| Release date | no data | 1 May 2009 (15 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 550 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 cores | 1 (Single-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 1 | 2 |
| Boost clock speed | 2 GHz | 1.8 GHz |
| Bus rate | 533 MHz | 800 MHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 64 KB |
| L2 cache | no data | 1 MB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | no data | 107 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 410 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 550 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.
| Socket | no data | P (478) |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 35 Watt |
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.29 | 0.43 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 2 |
| Threads | 1 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 35 Watt |
Celeron M 550 has 16.7% lower power consumption.
Celeron Dual-Core T3000, on the other hand, has a 48.3% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.
The Celeron Dual-Core T3000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M 550 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 550 and Celeron Dual-Core T3000, 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.
