Celeron Dual-Core T3000 vs Athlon II M320
Celeron Dual-Core T3000
Athlon II M320
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 Celeron Dual-Core T3000 is positioned at rank 824 and the Athlon II M320 is on rank 809, so the Athlon II M320 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Celeron Dual-Core T3000
Performance Per Dollar Athlon II M320
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Celeron Dual-Core T3000 | Athlon II M320 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | Equivalent pricing | Equivalent pricing |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Penryn-1M (2009) / 45 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Caspian (2009) / 45 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Celeron Dual-Core T3000 | Athlon II M320 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+0%) | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | Equivalent pricing | Equivalent pricing |
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 Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Athlon II M320
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.
Athlon II M320
The Athlon II M320 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Caspian (2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2.1 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: S1g3. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Memory support: DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 1,795 points. Launch price was $149.
Processing Power
Both the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Athlon II M320 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.8 GHz on the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 versus 2.1 GHz on the Athlon II M320 — a 15.4% clock advantage for the Athlon II M320. The Celeron Dual-Core T3000 uses the Penryn-1M (2009) architecture (45 nm), while the Athlon II M320 uses Caspian (2009) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 scores 1,797 against the Athlon II M320's 1,795 — a 0.1% lead for the Celeron Dual-Core T3000.
| Feature | Celeron Dual-Core T3000 | Athlon II M320 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 1.8 GHz | 2.1 GHz+17% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
| Process | 45 nm | 45 nm |
| Architecture | Penryn-1M (2009) | Caspian (2009) |
| PassMark | 1,797 | 1,795 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 188 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 1,955 |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron Dual-Core T3000 uses the P socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Athlon II M320 uses S1g3 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-800 on the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 versus DDR2-800 on the Athlon II M320 — the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 supports 40% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 8 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Celeron Dual-Core T3000) vs 0 (Athlon II M320) — the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Mobile Intel 4 Series (Celeron Dual-Core T3000) and Socket S1g3 (Athlon II M320).
| Feature | Celeron Dual-Core T3000 | Athlon II M320 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | P | S1g3 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 2.0+82% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-800+50% | DDR2-800 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: false (Celeron Dual-Core T3000) vs AMD-V (Athlon II M320). Primary use case: Athlon II M320 targets Legacy Laptop. Direct competitor: Athlon II M320 rivals Core 2 Duo T6400.
| Feature | Celeron Dual-Core T3000 | Athlon II M320 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| IGPU Model | — | None |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | false | AMD-V |
| Target Use | — | Legacy Laptop |
Value Analysis
The Celeron Dual-Core T3000 launched at $80 MSRP, while the Athlon II M320 debuted at $75. At current prices ($15 vs $15), the Athlon II M320 is $0 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 delivers 119.8 pts/$ vs 119.7 pts/$ for the Athlon II M320 — making the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 the 0.1% better value option.
| Feature | Celeron Dual-Core T3000 | Athlon II M320 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $80 | $75-6% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $15 | $15 |
| Performance per Dollar | 119.8 | 119.7 |
| Release Date | 2009 | 2009 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Athlon II M320
