Celeron 900 vs E-300

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

E-300
2011
2 cores / 2 threads, 18 Watt
0.21

Celeron 900 outperforms E-300 by a significant 24% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing E-300 and Celeron 900 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking32043149
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD E-Seriesno data
Power efficiency1.100.70
Architecture codenameZacate (2011−2013)no data
Release date22 August 2011 (13 years ago)1 January 2009 (15 years ago)

Detailed specifications

E-300 and Celeron 900 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 speedno data2.2 GHz
Boost clock speed1.3 GHzno data
L1 cache64K (per core)no data
L2 cache512K (per core)no data
L3 cache0 KB1 MB L2 Cache
Chip lithography40 nm45 nm
Die size75 mm2no data
Maximum core temperatureno data105 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on E-300 and Celeron 900 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
SocketFT1PGA478
Power consumption (TDP)18 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by E-300 and Celeron 900. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsMMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SVMno data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data-
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-

Security technologies

E-300 and Celeron 900 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by E-300 and Celeron 900 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-xno data-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by E-300 and Celeron 900. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon HD 6310no 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.

E-300 0.21
Celeron 900 0.26
+23.8%

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.

E-300 340
Celeron 900 412
+21.2%

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.

E-300 88
Celeron 900 220
+150%

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.

E-300 152
Celeron 900 234
+53.9%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.21 0.26
Recency 22 August 2011 1 January 2009
Chip lithography 40 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 18 Watt 35 Watt

E-300 has an age advantage of 2 years, a 12.5% more advanced lithography process, and 94.4% lower power consumption.

Celeron 900, on the other hand, has a 23.8% higher aggregate performance score.

The Celeron 900 is our recommended choice as it beats the E-300 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between E-300 and Celeron 900, 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.


AMD E-300
E-300
Intel Celeron 900
Celeron 900

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.


2.4 303 votes

Rate E-300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.4 56 votes

Rate Celeron 900 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about E-300 or Celeron 900, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.