Celeron E3400 vs E-300

VS

Primary details

Comparing E-300 and Celeron E3400 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the rankingnot rated2827
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data3.72
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesAMD E-Seriesno data
Power efficiencyno data0.80
Architecture codenameZacate (2011−2013)Wolfdale (2008−2010)
Release date22 August 2011 (13 years ago)17 January 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$76

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

E-300 and Celeron E3400 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)2 (Dual-core)
Threads22
Base clock speedno data2.6 GHz
Boost clock speed1.3 GHz2.6 GHz
L1 cache64K (per core)64 KB (per core)
L2 cache512K (per core)1 MB (shared)
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography40 nm45 nm
Die size75 mm282 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data74 °C
Number of transistorsno data228 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage rangeno data0.85V-1.3625V

Compatibility

Information on E-300 and Celeron E3400 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 configuration11
SocketFT1LGA775
Power consumption (TDP)18 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by E-300 and Celeron E3400. 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-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+

Security technologies

E-300 and Celeron E3400 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 E3400 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data-
VT-xno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by E-300 and Celeron E3400. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR1, DDR2, DDR3

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon HD 6310no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by E-300 and Celeron E3400.

PCIe versionno data2.0

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.

E-300 339
Celeron E3400 869
+156%

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 E3400 290
+230%

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 E3400 485
+219%

Pros & cons summary


Recency 22 August 2011 17 January 2010
Chip lithography 40 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 18 Watt 65 Watt

E-300 has an age advantage of 1 year, a 12.5% more advanced lithography process, and 261.1% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between E-300 and Celeron E3400. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that E-300 is a notebook processor while Celeron E3400 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between E-300 and Celeron E3400, 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 E3400
Celeron E3400

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.


2.4 288 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 268 votes

Rate Celeron E3400 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 E3400, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.