Celeron G465 vs E-300

The Celeron G465 packs 1 cores / 2 threads, while the E-300 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the E-300 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 1.9 GHz on the Celeron G465 versus 1.3 GHz on the E-300 — a 37.5% clock advantage for the Celeron G465. The Celeron G465 uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the E-300 uses Zacate (2011−2013) (40 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron G465 scores 1,185 against the E-300's 1,176 — a 0.8% lead for the Celeron G465. L3 cache: 1.5 MB on the Celeron G465 vs 0 kB on the E-300.

The Celeron G465 uses the LGA1155 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the E-300 uses FT1 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3-1066 memory speed. The Celeron G465 supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 120% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Celeron G465) vs 1 (E-300). PCIe lanes: 16 (Celeron G465) vs 0 (E-300) — the Celeron G465 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x (Celeron G465) vs AMD-V (E-300). Both include integrated graphics — HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (Celeron G465) and Radeon HD 6310 (E-300) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron G465 targets Budget, E-300 targets Budget Mobile. Direct competitor: Celeron G465 rivals Pentium G630.

The Celeron G465 launched at $70 MSRP, while the E-300 debuted at $60. At current prices ($37 vs $20), the E-300 is $17 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron G465 delivers 32.0 pts/$ vs 58.8 pts/$ for the E-300 — making the E-300 the 59% better value option.