A6-7000 vs Celeron Dual-Core T3300
A6-7000
Celeron Dual-Core T3300
Performance Spectrum - CPU
About PassMark
PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The A6-7000 is positioned at rank 1081 and the Celeron Dual-Core T3300 is on rank 1038, so the Celeron Dual-Core T3300 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar A6-7000
Performance Per Dollar Celeron Dual-Core T3300
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | A6-7000 | Celeron Dual-Core T3300 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($15) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($30) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Kaveri (2014−2015) / 28 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Penryn (2008−2011) / 45 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | A6-7000 | Celeron Dual-Core T3300 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+99%) | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($15) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($30) |
Performance Check
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of A6-7000 and Celeron Dual-Core T3300
A6-7000
The A6-7000 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Kaveri (2014−2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 3 GHz. L2 cache: 1024 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FT3. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,002 points. Launch price was $70.
Celeron Dual-Core T3300
The Celeron Dual-Core T3300 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: P. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,005 points. Launch price was $69.
Processing Power
Both the A6-7000 and Celeron Dual-Core T3300 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3 GHz on the A6-7000 versus 2 GHz on the Celeron Dual-Core T3300 — a 40% clock advantage for the A6-7000. The A6-7000 uses the Kaveri (2014−2015) architecture (28 nm), while the Celeron Dual-Core T3300 uses Penryn (2008−2011) (45 nm). In PassMark, the A6-7000 scores 1,002 against the Celeron Dual-Core T3300's 1,005 — a 0.3% lead for the Celeron Dual-Core T3300.
| Feature | A6-7000 | Celeron Dual-Core T3300 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 3 GHz+50% | 2 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.2 GHz | — |
| L2 Cache | 1024 kB | 1 MB |
| Process | 28 nm-38% | 45 nm |
| Architecture | Kaveri (2014−2015) | Penryn (2008−2011) |
| PassMark | 1,002 | 1,005 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 300 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 520 |
Memory & Platform
The A6-7000 uses the FT3 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron Dual-Core T3300 uses P (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 1600 on the A6-7000 versus DDR3-800 on the Celeron Dual-Core T3300 — the A6-7000 supports 199.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A6-7000 supports up to 16 of RAM compared to 8 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (A6-7000) vs 2 (Celeron Dual-Core T3300). PCIe lanes: 16 (A6-7000) vs 0 (Celeron Dual-Core T3300) — the A6-7000 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: FP3 (A6-7000) and GL40,GM45,GS45 (Celeron Dual-Core T3300).
| Feature | A6-7000 | Celeron Dual-Core T3300 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | FT3 | P |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0+173% | PCIe 1.1 |
| Max RAM Speed | 1600+53233% | DDR3-800 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 16 | 8 GB+52428700% |
| RAM Channels | 1 | 2+100% |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: true (A6-7000) vs No (Celeron Dual-Core T3300). The A6-7000 includes integrated graphics (Radeon R4 Graphics), while the Celeron Dual-Core T3300 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron Dual-Core T3300 targets Budget. Direct competitor: A6-7000 rivals Pentium 3556U; Celeron Dual-Core T3300 rivals Pentium T4200.
| Feature | A6-7000 | Celeron Dual-Core T3300 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | No |
| IGPU Model | Radeon R4 Graphics | — |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | true | No |
| Target Use | — | Budget |
Value Analysis
The A6-7000 launched at $100 MSRP, while the Celeron Dual-Core T3300 debuted at $86. At current prices ($15 vs $30), the A6-7000 is $15 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the A6-7000 delivers 66.8 pts/$ vs 33.5 pts/$ for the Celeron Dual-Core T3300 — making the A6-7000 the 66.4% better value option.
| Feature | A6-7000 | Celeron Dual-Core T3300 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $100 | $86-14% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $15-50% | $30 |
| Performance per Dollar | 66.8+99% | 33.5 |
| Release Date | 2014 | 2010 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on A6-7000 and Celeron Dual-Core T3300
