Athlon II X2 260u vs Celeron T3300

Athlon II X2 260u vs Celeron T3300 Performance Spectrum

Athlon II X2 260u

2 / 2

990

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron T3300

1,005

+1.5%

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.

Athlon II X2 260u vs Celeron T3300 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.

Athlon II X2 260u vs Celeron T3300: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Athlon II X2 260u

2009

Why buy it

✅Costs $26 less on MSRP ($60 MSRP vs $86 MSRP).
✅Delivers 41.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 16.5 vs 11.7 PassMark/$ ($60 MSRP vs $86 MSRP).
✅Draws 25W instead of 35W, a 10W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (true), unlike Celeron T3300.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (990 vs 1,005).

Celeron T3300

2010

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 11.7 vs 16.5 PassMark/$ ($86 MSRP vs $60 MSRP).
❌40% higher power demand at 35W vs 25W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Athlon II X2 260u.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron T3300 better than Athlon II X2 260u?

Yes. Celeron T3300 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 1.5% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron T3300 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.2% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron T3300 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.5% better PassMark.

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

Celeron T3300 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Celeron T3300 comes in 43.3% more expensive on MSRP at $86 MSRP versus $60 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Athlon II X2 260u only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2009 platform. Even with 41.2% better value on paper (16.5 vs 11.7 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on AM3.

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

Celeron T3300 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2010 vs 2009). That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Athlon II X2 260u vs Celeron T3300 Technical Specifications

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

Athlon II X2 260u

The Athlon II X2 260u is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 20 October 2009 (16 years ago). It is based on the Regor (2009−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.8 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: AM3. Thermal design power (TDP): 25 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 990 points. Launch price was $83.

Celeron T3300

The Celeron T3300 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. Base frequency: 2 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 1,005 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Athlon II X2 260u is built on the Regor (2009−2013) architecture. In PassMark, the Athlon II X2 260u scores 990 against the Celeron T3300's 1,005 — a 1.5% lead for the Celeron T3300. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon II X2 260u vs 1 MB on the Celeron T3300.

Feature	Athlon II X2 260u	Celeron T3300
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	—
Boost Clock	1.8 GHz	—
Base Clock	—	2 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	1 MB
L2 Cache	1 MB	—
Process	45 nm	45 nm
Architecture	Regor (2009−2013)	—
PassMark	990	1,005+2%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon II X2 260u uses the AM3 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron T3300 uses PGA478 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Athlon II X2 260u	Celeron T3300
Socket	AM3	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	1333	—
Max RAM Capacity	16	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	0	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: true (Athlon II X2 260u) / not specified (Celeron T3300). Direct competitor: Athlon II X2 260u rivals Core 2 Duo SU9400.

Feature	Athlon II X2 260u	Celeron T3300
Integrated GPU	No	—
IGPU Model	None	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	true	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Athlon II X2 260u was priced at $60, while the Celeron T3300 came in at $86. On launch pricing ($60 vs $86), Athlon II X2 260u was $26 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon II X2 260u delivers 16.5 pts/$ vs 11.7 pts/$ for the Celeron T3300 — making the Athlon II X2 260u the 34.2% better value option.

Feature	Athlon II X2 260u	Celeron T3300
MSRP	$60-30%	$86
Performance per Dollar	16.5+41%	11.7
Release Date	2009	2010

Search Athlon II X2 260u on Amazon

Search Celeron T3300 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.