Celeron 3755U vs E-300

Celeron 3755U vs E-300 Performance Spectrum

Celeron 3755U

2 / 2

1,182

+0.5%

1,176

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

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.

Celeron 3755U vs E-300 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 3755U vs E-300: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 3755U

2015

Why buy it

✅Draws 15W instead of 18W, a 3W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (12 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

E-300

2011

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,176 vs 1,182).
❌Launch MSRP is still $60 MSRP, while Celeron 3755U mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌20% higher power demand at 18W vs 15W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 3755U better than E-300?

Yes. Celeron 3755U is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.5% 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 3755U is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.8% 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 3755U is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.5% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron 3755U is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Celeron 3755U comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $60 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. E-300 only looks good on raw value math because it is a cheap legacy laptop chip, not because it is a real desktop gaming recommendation. It simply does not keep up in modern games, especially when the gap is already 1.8% in the shared gaming data.

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

Celeron 3755U makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 vs 2011) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron 3755U vs E-300 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 3755U

The Celeron 3755U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 March 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell-U (2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.7 GHz, with boost up to 1.7 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1168. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,182 points. Launch price was $107.

E-300

The E-300 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 22 August 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Zacate (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.3 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 40 nm process technology. Socket: FT1. Thermal design power (TDP): 18 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,176 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 3755U and E-300 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.7 GHz on the Celeron 3755U versus 1.3 GHz on the E-300 — a 26.7% clock advantage for the Celeron 3755U. The Celeron 3755U uses the Broadwell-U (2015) architecture (14 nm), while the E-300 uses Zacate (2011−2013) (40 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 3755U scores 1,182 against the E-300's 1,176 — a 0.5% lead for the Celeron 3755U. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 3755U vs 0 kB on the E-300.

Feature	Celeron 3755U	E-300
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.7 GHz+31%	1.3 GHz
Base Clock	1.7 GHz	—
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	0 kB
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	512K (per core)+100%
Process	14 nm-65%	40 nm
Architecture	Broadwell-U (2015)	Zacate (2011−2013)
PassMark	1,182	1,176
Geekbench 6 Multi	625	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 3755U uses the FCBGA1168 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the E-300 uses FT1 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3L-1600 on the Celeron 3755U versus DDR3-1066 on the E-300 — the Celeron 3755U supports 50.1% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 3755U supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Celeron 3755U) vs 1 (E-300). PCIe lanes: 12 (Celeron 3755U) vs 0 (E-300) — the Celeron 3755U offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	Celeron 3755U	E-300
Socket	FCBGA1168	FT1
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1600+50%	DDR3-1066
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+100%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2+100%	1
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	12	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Celeron 3755U) vs AMD-V (E-300). Both include integrated graphics — HD Graphics (Broadwell) (Celeron 3755U) and Radeon HD 6310 (E-300) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 3755U targets Budget, E-300 targets Budget Mobile. Direct competitor: Celeron 3755U rivals Pentium 3825U.