Athlon X2 L310 vs Celeron T3300
Primary details
Comparing Celeron T3300 and Athlon X2 L310 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | no data | 2x AMD Athlon |
| Architecture codename | no data | Conesus (2009) |
| Release date | 1 January 2010 (14 years ago) | 10 September 2009 (15 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron T3300 and Athlon X2 L310 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 | no data | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | no data | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1.2 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 800 MHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 256 KB |
| L2 cache | no data | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 1 MB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 65 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 95 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron T3300 and Athlon X2 L310 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 | PGA478 | BGA / 638 lidless micro-PGA |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 13 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron T3300 and Athlon X2 L310. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | MMX, 3DNow, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, AMD64, Virtualization, Enhanced Virus Protection |
| VirusProtect | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | - | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
Security technologies
Celeron T3300 and Athlon X2 L310 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 T3300 and Athlon X2 L310 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| 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.
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
| Recency | 1 January 2010 | 10 September 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 13 Watt |
Celeron T3300 has an age advantage of 3 months, and a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.
Athlon X2 L310, on the other hand, has 169.2% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Celeron T3300 and Athlon X2 L310. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron T3300 and Athlon X2 L310, 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.
