Celeron J3160 vs Core 2 Solo SU3300

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 J3160 vs Core 2 Solo SU3300 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 J3160 vs Core 2 Solo SU3300: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron J3160

2016

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics 400, while Core 2 Solo SU3300 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌100% higher power demand at 6W vs 3W.

Core 2 Solo SU3300

2008

Why buy it

✅Draws 3W instead of 6W, a 3W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,247 vs 1,250).
❌Launch MSRP is still $262 MSRP, while Celeron J3160 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron J3160 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron J3160 better than Core 2 Solo SU3300?

Yes. Celeron J3160 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.2% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron J3160 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.1% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron J3160 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Celeron J3160 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Celeron J3160 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $262 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core 2 Solo SU3300 only looks good on raw value math because it is a cheap legacy laptop chip, not because it is a real desktop gaming recommendation. It simply does not keep up in modern games, especially when the gap is already 0.1% in the shared gaming data.

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

Celeron J3160 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2016 vs 2008) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 threads instead of 1/1. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron J3160 vs Core 2 Solo SU3300 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron J3160

The Celeron J3160 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 15 January 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Airmont (2016) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.24 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR3L-1600. Passmark benchmark score: 1,250 points. Launch price was $107.

Core 2 Solo SU3300

The Core 2 Solo SU3300 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 August 2008 (17 years ago). It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.2 GHz. L2 cache: 3 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: BGA956. Thermal design power (TDP): 3 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,247 points. Launch price was $262.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron J3160 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Core 2 Solo SU3300 offers 1 cores / 1 threads — the Celeron J3160 has 3 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.24 GHz on the Celeron J3160 versus 1.2 GHz on the Core 2 Solo SU3300 — a 60.5% clock advantage for the Celeron J3160. The Celeron J3160 uses the Airmont (2016) architecture (14 nm), while the Core 2 Solo SU3300 uses Penryn (2008−2011) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron J3160 scores 1,250 against the Core 2 Solo SU3300's 1,247 — a 0.2% lead for the Celeron J3160.

Feature	Celeron J3160	Core 2 Solo SU3300
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+300%	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2.24 GHz+87%	1.2 GHz
Base Clock	1.6 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	—
L2 Cache	2 MB	3 MB+50%
Process	14 nm-69%	45 nm
Architecture	Airmont (2016)	Penryn (2008−2011)
PassMark	1,250	1,247
Geekbench 6 Single	350	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	650	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron J3160 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core 2 Solo SU3300 uses BGA956 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3L-1600 on the Celeron J3160 versus DDR2-800 on the Core 2 Solo SU3300 — the Celeron J3160 supports 100% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron J3160 supports up to 8 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Celeron J3160) vs 1 (Core 2 Solo SU3300). PCIe lanes: 4 (Celeron J3160) vs 0 (Core 2 Solo SU3300) — the Celeron J3160 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	Celeron J3160	Core 2 Solo SU3300
Socket	FCBGA1170	BGA956
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+173%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1600+100%	DDR2-800
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB+100%	4 GB
RAM Channels	2+100%	1
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	4	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support VT-x virtualization. The Celeron J3160 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics 400), while the Core 2 Solo SU3300 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron J3160 targets Low Power, Core 2 Solo SU3300 targets Mobile. Direct competitor: Celeron J3160 rivals Pentium J3710.