A6-7480 vs Celeron Dual-Core T3000

A6-7480 vs Celeron Dual-Core T3000 Performance Spectrum

A6-7480

2 / 2

1,793

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron Dual-Core T3000

2 / 2

1,797

+0.2%

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.

A6-7480 vs Celeron Dual-Core T3000 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

A6-7480 vs Celeron Dual-Core T3000: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

A6-7480

2018

Why buy it

✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon R5 Graphics, while Celeron Dual-Core T3000 needs a discrete GPU.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (true), unlike Celeron Dual-Core T3000.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,793 vs 1,797).
❌4400% higher power demand at 45W vs 1W.

Celeron Dual-Core T3000

2009

Why buy it

✅+0.2% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 1W instead of 45W, a 44W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $80 MSRP, while A6-7480 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌No integrated graphics, while A6-7480 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike A6-7480.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron Dual-Core T3000 better than A6-7480?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, A6-7480 is ahead with a 0.7% average FPS lead across 39 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron Dual-Core T3000 pulls ahead with 0.2% better PassMark.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron Dual-Core T3000 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Celeron Dual-Core T3000 is the better buy right now. Celeron Dual-Core T3000 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $80 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.2% better PassMark. The compromise is that A6-7480 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 0.7% average FPS lead across 39 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (22.5 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

A6-7480 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2018 vs 2009). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

A6-7480 vs Celeron Dual-Core T3000 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

A6-7480

The A6-7480 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Carrizo (2015−2018) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 3.5 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB (total). Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FM2+. Thermal design power (TDP): 45 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-2133. Passmark benchmark score: 1,793 points. Launch price was $70.

Celeron Dual-Core T3000

The Celeron Dual-Core T3000 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Penryn-1M (2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.8 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: P. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,797 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the A6-7480 and Celeron Dual-Core T3000 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.8 GHz on the A6-7480 versus 1.8 GHz on the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 — a 71.4% clock advantage for the A6-7480. The A6-7480 uses the Carrizo (2015−2018) architecture (28 nm), while the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 uses Penryn-1M (2009) (45 nm). In PassMark, the A6-7480 scores 1,793 against the Celeron Dual-Core T3000's 1,797 — a 0.2% lead for the Celeron Dual-Core T3000.

Feature	A6-7480	Celeron Dual-Core T3000
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	3.8 GHz+111%	1.8 GHz
Base Clock	3.5 GHz	—
L2 Cache	1 MB (total)	1 MB
Process	28 nm-38%	45 nm
Architecture	Carrizo (2015−2018)	Penryn-1M (2009)
PassMark	1,793	1,797

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A6-7480 uses the FM2+ socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 uses P (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 2133 on the A6-7480 versus DDR3-800 on the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 — the A6-7480 supports 166.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A6-7480 supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 16 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: FM2+ (A6-7480) and Mobile Intel 4 Series (Celeron Dual-Core T3000).

Feature	A6-7480	Celeron Dual-Core T3000
Socket	FM2+	P
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+173%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	2133+167%	DDR3-800
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB+300%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: true (A6-7480) vs false (Celeron Dual-Core T3000). The A6-7480 includes integrated graphics (Radeon R5 Graphics), while the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: A6-7480 rivals Pentium G4400.