Core 2 Duo T5850 vs Celeron T3300

VS

Primary details

Comparing Celeron T3300 and Core 2 Duo T5850 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the rankingnot ratednot rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Seriesno dataIntel Core 2 Duo
Architecture codenameno dataMerom (2006−2008)
Release date1 January 2010 (14 years ago)1 October 2008 (16 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Celeron T3300 and Core 2 Duo T5850 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 coresno data2 (Dual-core)
Threadsno data2
Base clock speed2 GHzno data
Boost clock speedno data2.1 GHz
Bus rateno data667 MHz
L2 cacheno data2 MB
L3 cache1 MBno data
Chip lithography45 nm65 nm
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron T3300 and Core 2 Duo T5850 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.

SocketPGA478no data
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt34 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron T3300 and Core 2 Duo T5850. 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 T3300 and Core 2 Duo T5850 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 Core 2 Duo T5850 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.



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 T3300 633
Core 2 Duo T5850 687
+8.5%

Pros & cons summary


Recency 1 January 2010 1 October 2008
Chip lithography 45 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 34 Watt

Celeron T3300 has an age advantage of 1 year, and a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.

Core 2 Duo T5850, on the other hand, has 2.9% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Celeron T3300 and Core 2 Duo T5850. We've got no test results to judge.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron T3300 and Core 2 Duo T5850, 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 T3300
Celeron T3300
Intel Core 2 Duo T5850
Core 2 Duo T5850

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.


2.4 17 votes

Rate Celeron T3300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 24 votes

Rate Core 2 Duo T5850 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron T3300 or Core 2 Duo T5850, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.