Celeron Dual-Core T3100 vs E-300

Celeron Dual-Core T3100 vs E-300 Performance Spectrum

Celeron Dual-Core T3100

2 / 2

1,174

0.0%

1,176

+0.2%

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 Dual-Core T3100 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 Dual-Core T3100 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 Dual-Core T3100

2009

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 18W, a 17W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,174 vs 1,176).
❌No integrated graphics, while E-300 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

E-300

2011

Why buy it

✅+0.2% higher PassMark.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon HD 6310, while Celeron Dual-Core T3100 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $60 MSRP, while Celeron Dual-Core T3100 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌1700% higher power demand at 18W vs 1W.

Quick Answers

So, is E-300 better than Celeron Dual-Core T3100?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron Dual-Core T3100 is ahead with a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, E-300 pulls ahead with 0.2% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, E-300 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

E-300 is the better buy right now. E-300 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $60 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.2% better PassMark. The compromise is that Celeron Dual-Core T3100 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (19.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

E-300 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2009) 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 T3100 vs E-300 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron Dual-Core T3100

The Celeron Dual-Core T3100 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.9 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,174 points. Launch price was $69.

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 Dual-Core T3100 and E-300 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.9 GHz on the Celeron Dual-Core T3100 versus 1.3 GHz on the E-300 — a 37.5% clock advantage for the Celeron Dual-Core T3100. The Celeron Dual-Core T3100 uses the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture (45 nm), while the E-300 uses Zacate (2011−2013) (40 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron Dual-Core T3100 scores 1,174 against the E-300's 1,176 — a 0.2% lead for the E-300.

Feature	Celeron Dual-Core T3100	E-300
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.9 GHz+46%	1.3 GHz
L3 Cache	—	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB	512K (per core)+51100%
Process	45 nm	40 nm-11%
Architecture	Penryn (2008−2011)	Zacate (2011−2013)
PassMark	1,174	1,176

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron Dual-Core T3100 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the E-300 uses FT1 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-800 on the Celeron Dual-Core T3100 versus DDR3-1066 on the E-300 — the E-300 supports 33.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 8 GB of RAM. Memory channels: 2 (Celeron Dual-Core T3100) vs 1 (E-300). Both provide 0 PCIe lanes.

Feature	Celeron Dual-Core T3100	E-300
Socket	PGA478	FT1
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 2.0+82%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-800	DDR3-1066+33%
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	8 GB
RAM Channels	2+100%	1
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: No (Celeron Dual-Core T3100) vs AMD-V (E-300). The E-300 includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 6310), while the Celeron Dual-Core T3100 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron Dual-Core T3100 targets Budget, E-300 targets Budget Mobile. Direct competitor: Celeron Dual-Core T3100 rivals Pentium T4200.