Celeron Dual-Core T3300 vs Phenom II X4 N930
Aggregate performance score
Phenom II X4 N930 outperforms Celeron Dual-Core T3300 by a whopping 145% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Phenom II X4 N930 and Celeron Dual-Core T3300 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2473 | 2992 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | 4x AMD Phenom II | Intel Celeron Dual-Core |
| Power efficiency | 2.65 | 1.08 |
| Architecture codename | Champlain (2010−2011) | Penryn (2008−2011) |
| Release date | 12 May 2010 (14 years ago) | 1 February 2010 (14 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Phenom II X4 N930 and Celeron Dual-Core T3300 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Boost clock speed | 2 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 3600 MHz | 800 MHz |
| L1 cache | 512 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 1 MB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 45 nm |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Phenom II X4 N930 and Celeron Dual-Core T3300 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 | S1 | Socket P 478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Phenom II X4 N930 and Celeron Dual-Core T3300. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX, 3dNow!, SSE (2,3,4A), AMD64, Enhanced Virus Protection, Vurtualization, HyperTransport 3.0 | no data |
| VirusProtect | + | - |
Security technologies
Phenom II X4 N930 and Celeron Dual-Core T3300 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Phenom II X4 N930 and Celeron Dual-Core T3300. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | 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.
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.
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
| Performance score | 0.98 | 0.40 |
| Recency | 12 May 2010 | 1 February 2010 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
Phenom II X4 N930 has a 145% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 months, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
The Phenom II X4 N930 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron Dual-Core T3300 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Phenom II X4 N930 and Celeron Dual-Core T3300, 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.
