Celeron N3150 vs E-300

Celeron N3150 vs E-300 Performance Spectrum

Celeron N3150

4 / 4

1,177

+0.1%

1,176

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 N3150 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 N3150 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 N3150

2015

Why buy it

✅Draws 6W instead of 18W, a 12W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

E-300

2011

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,176 vs 1,177).
❌Launch MSRP is still $60 MSRP, while Celeron N3150 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌200% higher power demand at 18W vs 6W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N3150 better than E-300?

Yes. Celeron N3150 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, 0.1% 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 N3150 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 N3150 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Celeron N3150 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Celeron N3150 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $60 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. E-300 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.

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

Celeron N3150 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 vs 2011) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron N3150 vs E-300 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron N3150

The Celeron N3150 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 April 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Braswell (2015−2016) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.08 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: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,177 points. Launch price was $107.

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

The Celeron N3150 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the E-300 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Celeron N3150 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.08 GHz on the Celeron N3150 versus 1.3 GHz on the E-300 — a 46.2% clock advantage for the Celeron N3150. The Celeron N3150 uses the Braswell (2015−2016) architecture (14 nm), while the E-300 uses Zacate (2011−2013) (40 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron N3150 scores 1,177 against the E-300's 1,176 — a 0.1% lead for the Celeron N3150. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron N3150	E-300
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.08 GHz+60%	1.3 GHz
Base Clock	1.6 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	2 MB	512K (per core)+25500%
Process	14 nm-65%	40 nm
Architecture	Braswell (2015−2016)	Zacate (2011−2013)
PassMark	1,177	1,176

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron N3150 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the E-300 uses FT1 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 1600 on the Celeron N3150 versus DDR3-1066 on the E-300 — the Celeron N3150 supports 50.1% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 8 GB of RAM. Memory channels: 2 (Celeron N3150) vs 1 (E-300). PCIe lanes: 4 (Celeron N3150) vs 0 (E-300) — the Celeron N3150 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	Celeron N3150	E-300
Socket	FCBGA1170	FT1
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	1600+50%	DDR3-1066
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	8 GB
RAM Channels	2+100%	1
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	4	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: true (Celeron N3150) vs AMD-V (E-300). Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics (Braswell) (Celeron N3150) and Radeon HD 6310 (E-300) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: E-300 targets Budget Mobile. Direct competitor: Celeron N3150 rivals AMD E2-7110.