Celeron P4600 vs E2-3000

Celeron P4600 vs E2-3000 Performance Spectrum

Celeron P4600

2 / 2

965

0.0%

990

+2.6%

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 P4600 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 P4600 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 P4600

2010

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Westmere), while E2-3000 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than E2-3000 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (965 vs 990).
❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while E2-3000 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌133.3% higher power demand at 35W vs 15W.

E2-3000

2013

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +6.2% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 15W instead of 35W, a 20W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron P4600 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is E2-3000 better than Celeron P4600?

Yes. E2-3000 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 6.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 2.6% 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, E2-3000 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 6.2% 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, E2-3000 is the stronger fit. You are getting 2.6% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

E2-3000 is still the much better call for a fresh build. E2-3000 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 6.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron P4600 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2010 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (11.2 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on PGA988.

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) 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 P4600 vs E2-3000 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron P4600

The Celeron P4600 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Westmere (2010−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 0.1 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-800, DDR3-1066. Passmark benchmark score: 965 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 P4600 and E2-3000 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 0.1 GHz on the Celeron P4600 versus 1.65 GHz on the E2-3000 — a 177.1% clock advantage for the E2-3000. The Celeron P4600 uses the Westmere (2010−2011) architecture (32 nm), while the E2-3000 uses Kabini (2013−2014) (28 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron P4600 scores 965 against the E2-3000's 990 — a 2.6% lead for the E2-3000. L3 cache: 2 MB on the Celeron P4600 vs 0 kB on the E2-3000.

Feature	Celeron P4600	E2-3000
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	0.1 GHz	1.65 GHz+1550%
Base Clock	2 GHz	—
L3 Cache	2 MB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB	1024 kB+100%
Process	32 nm	28 nm-13%
Architecture	Westmere (2010−2011)	Kabini (2013−2014)
PassMark	965	990+3%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron P4600 uses the PGA988 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the E2-3000 uses FT3 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron P4600	E2-3000
Socket	PGA988	FT3
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	1066	—
Max RAM Capacity	8	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: true (Celeron P4600) / not specified (E2-3000). The Celeron P4600 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Westmere)), while the E2-3000 requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Celeron P4600 rivals Pentium P6000.