Celeron 1000M vs E2-3000M

VS

Aggregate performance score

E2-3000M
2011
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.42
Celeron 1000M
2013
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.67
+59.5%

Celeron 1000M outperforms E2-3000M by an impressive 60% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing E2-3000M and Celeron 1000M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking29712731
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD E-SeriesIntel Celeron
Power efficiency1.141.81
Architecture codenameLlano (2011−2012)Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
Release date20 December 2011 (12 years ago)20 January 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$86

Detailed specifications

E2-3000M and Celeron 1000M 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 speed1.8 GHz1.8 GHz
Boost clock speed2.4 GHz1.8 GHz
Bus rateno data5 GT/s
L1 cache128 KB (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache512K (per core)256K (per core)
L3 cache0 KB2 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm22 nm
Die size228 mm2118 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data105 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data105 °C
Number of transistors1,178 million1,400 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on E2-3000M and Celeron 1000M 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
SocketFS1FCPGA988
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by E2-3000M and Celeron 1000M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsSSE4.1/2, 3DNow, Radeon HD 6380GIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
My WiFino data-
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Flex Memory Accessno data+
Demand Based Switchingno data-
FDIno data+
Fast Memory Accessno data+

Security technologies

E2-3000M and Celeron 1000M technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by E2-3000M and Celeron 1000M are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by E2-3000M and Celeron 1000M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data32 GB
Max memory channelsno data2
Maximum memory bandwidthno data25.6 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon HD 6380GIntel HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel Processors
Graphics max frequencyno data1 GHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of E2-3000M and Celeron 1000M integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data3
eDPno data+
DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+
SDVOno data+
CRTno data+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by E2-3000M and Celeron 1000M.

PCIe versionno data2.0
PCI Express lanesno data16

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.

E2-3000M 0.42
Celeron 1000M 0.67
+59.5%

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.

E2-3000M 668
Celeron 1000M 1069
+60%

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.

E2-3000M 231
Celeron 1000M 296
+28.1%

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.

E2-3000M 426
Celeron 1000M 509
+19.5%

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.

E2-3000M 1597
Celeron 1000M 2480
+55.3%

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

E2-3000M 3014
Celeron 1000M 4757
+57.8%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.42 0.67
Integrated graphics card 0.52 0.77
Recency 20 December 2011 20 January 2013
Chip lithography 32 nm 22 nm

Celeron 1000M has a 59.5% higher aggregate performance score, 48.1% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 45.5% more advanced lithography process.

The Celeron 1000M is our recommended choice as it beats the E2-3000M in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between E2-3000M and Celeron 1000M, 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 E2-3000M
E2-3000M
Intel Celeron 1000M
Celeron 1000M

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.


2.9 54 votes

Rate E2-3000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 166 votes

Rate Celeron 1000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about E2-3000M or Celeron 1000M, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.