Celeron 2950M vs Core 2 Solo SU3300

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.

Celeron 2950M vs Core 2 Solo SU3300 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.

Celeron 2950M vs Core 2 Solo SU3300: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 2950M

2013

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Haswell), while Core 2 Solo SU3300 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,238 vs 1,247).
❌16966.7% higher power demand at 512W vs 3W.

Core 2 Solo SU3300

2008

Why buy it

✅+0.7% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 3W instead of 512W, a 509W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $262 MSRP, while Celeron 2950M mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 2950M can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Core 2 Solo SU3300 better than Celeron 2950M?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron 2950M is ahead with a 1.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Core 2 Solo SU3300 pulls ahead with 0.7% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core 2 Solo SU3300 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.7% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Core 2 Solo SU3300 is the better buy right now. Core 2 Solo SU3300 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $262 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.7% better PassMark. The compromise is that Celeron 2950M is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 1.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (4.8 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Celeron 2950M makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2008). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron 2950M vs Core 2 Solo SU3300 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 2950M

The Celeron 2950M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: PGA946. Thermal design power (TDP): 37 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,238 points. Launch price was $75.

Core 2 Solo SU3300

The Core 2 Solo SU3300 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 August 2008 (17 years ago). It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.2 GHz. L2 cache: 3 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: BGA956. Thermal design power (TDP): 3 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,247 points. Launch price was $262.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron 2950M packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Core 2 Solo SU3300 offers 1 cores / 1 threads — the Celeron 2950M has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Celeron 2950M versus 1.2 GHz on the Core 2 Solo SU3300 — a 50% clock advantage for the Celeron 2950M. The Celeron 2950M uses the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture (22 nm), while the Core 2 Solo SU3300 uses Penryn (2008−2011) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 2950M scores 1,238 against the Core 2 Solo SU3300's 1,247 — a 0.7% lead for the Core 2 Solo SU3300.

Feature	Celeron 2950M	Core 2 Solo SU3300
Cores / Threads	2 / 2+100%	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2 GHz+67%	1.2 GHz
Base Clock	2 GHz	—
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	—
L2 Cache	256K (per core)+8433%	3 MB
Process	22 nm-51%	45 nm
Architecture	Haswell (2013−2015)	Penryn (2008−2011)
PassMark	1,238	1,247
Geekbench 6 Single	352	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	636	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 2950M uses the PGA946 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core 2 Solo SU3300 uses BGA956 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3L-1600 on the Celeron 2950M versus DDR2-800 on the Core 2 Solo SU3300 — the Celeron 2950M supports 100% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 2950M supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 700% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Celeron 2950M) vs 1 (Core 2 Solo SU3300). PCIe lanes: 16 (Celeron 2950M) vs 0 (Core 2 Solo SU3300) — the Celeron 2950M offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	Celeron 2950M	Core 2 Solo SU3300
Socket	PGA946	BGA956
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+173%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1600+100%	DDR2-800
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB+700%	4 GB
RAM Channels	2+100%	1
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support VT-x virtualization. The Celeron 2950M includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Haswell)), while the Core 2 Solo SU3300 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 2950M targets Budget, Core 2 Solo SU3300 targets Mobile. Direct competitor: Celeron 2950M rivals Pentium 2020M.