Celeron Dual-Core T3300 vs E2-3000

Celeron Dual-Core T3300 vs E2-3000 Performance Spectrum

Celeron Dual-Core T3300

2 / 2

1,005

+1.5%

990

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 Dual-Core T3300 vs E2-3000 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 T3300 vs E2-3000: 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 T3300

2010

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 15W, a 14W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while E2-3000 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

E2-3000

2013

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (990 vs 1,005).
❌1400% higher power demand at 15W vs 1W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron Dual-Core T3300 better than E2-3000?

Yes. Celeron Dual-Core T3300 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 47 shared CPU game tests in our data and 1.5% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron Dual-Core T3300 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.2% more average FPS across 47 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron Dual-Core T3300 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.5% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron Dual-Core T3300 is the better buy right now. Celeron Dual-Core T3300 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $86 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 47 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (11.7 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

E2-3000 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2010). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron Dual-Core T3300 vs E2-3000 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron Dual-Core T3300

The Celeron Dual-Core T3300 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: 2 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: P. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,005 points. Launch price was $69.

E2-3000

The E2-3000 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Kabini (2013−2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.65 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1024 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FT3. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 990 points. Launch price was $50.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron Dual-Core T3300 and E2-3000 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Celeron Dual-Core T3300 versus 1.65 GHz on the E2-3000 — a 19.2% clock advantage for the Celeron Dual-Core T3300. The Celeron Dual-Core T3300 uses the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture (45 nm), while the E2-3000 uses Kabini (2013−2014) (28 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron Dual-Core T3300 scores 1,005 against the E2-3000's 990 — a 1.5% lead for the Celeron Dual-Core T3300.

Feature	Celeron Dual-Core T3300	E2-3000
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2 GHz+21%	1.65 GHz
L3 Cache	—	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB	1024 kB
Process	45 nm	28 nm-38%
Architecture	Penryn (2008−2011)	Kabini (2013−2014)
PassMark	1,005+2%	990
Geekbench 6 Single	300	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	520	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron Dual-Core T3300 uses the P socket (PCIe 1.1), while the E2-3000 uses FT3 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron Dual-Core T3300	E2-3000
Socket	P	FT3
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 2.0+82%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-800	—
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	0	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: No (Celeron Dual-Core T3300) / not specified (E2-3000). Primary use case: Celeron Dual-Core T3300 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron Dual-Core T3300 rivals Pentium T4200.