Celeron Dual-Core T3000 vs Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82

Celeron Dual-Core T3000 vs Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82 Performance Spectrum

Celeron Dual-Core T3000

2 / 2

1,797

+1.1%

Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82

2 / 2

1,777

0.0%

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 Dual-Core T3000 vs Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82 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 Dual-Core T3000 vs Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron Dual-Core T3000

2009

Why buy it

✅+1.1% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 1W instead of 2W, a 1W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $80 MSRP, while Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82

2008

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,777 vs 1,797).
❌100% higher power demand at 2W vs 1W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron Dual-Core T3000 better than Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82 is ahead with a 2.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron Dual-Core T3000 pulls ahead with 1.1% 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 1.1% 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 $80 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 1.1% better PassMark. The compromise is that Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 2.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (22.5 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Celeron Dual-Core T3000 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2009 vs 2008) 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 Dual-Core T3000 vs Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82 Technical Specifications

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

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.

Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82

The Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Puma (2008−2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2.2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: S1g2. Thermal design power (TDP): 2 MB. Memory support: DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 1,777 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.8 GHz on the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 versus 2.2 GHz on the Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82 — a 20% clock advantage for the Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82. The Celeron Dual-Core T3000 uses the Penryn-1M (2009) architecture (45 nm), while the Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82 uses Puma (2008−2009) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 scores 1,797 against the Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82's 1,777 — a 1.1% lead for the Celeron Dual-Core T3000.

Feature	Celeron Dual-Core T3000	Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.8 GHz	2.2 GHz+22%
L3 Cache	—	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB	2 MB+100%
Process	45 nm-31%	65 nm
Architecture	Penryn-1M (2009)	Puma (2008−2009)
PassMark	1,797+1%	1,777

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron Dual-Core T3000 uses the P socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82 uses S1g2 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.