Celeron T3000 vs E2-2000

Celeron T3000 vs E2-2000 Performance Spectrum

Celeron T3000

905

+2.8%

880

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 T3000 vs E2-2000 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 T3000 vs E2-2000: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron T3000

2009

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $150 MSRP, while E2-2000 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌94.4% higher power demand at 35W vs 18W.

E2-2000

2013

Why buy it

✅Draws 18W instead of 35W, a 17W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (880 vs 905).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron T3000 better than E2-2000?

Yes. Celeron T3000 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 2.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 2.8% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron T3000 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 2.8% 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 T3000 is the stronger fit. You are getting 2.8% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron T3000 is the better buy right now. Celeron T3000 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $150 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 2.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (6.0 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

E2-2000 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2009). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron T3000 vs E2-2000 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron T3000

The Celeron T3000 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency: 1.8 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 905 points. Launch price was $69.

E2-2000

The E2-2000 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Zacate (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.75 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: 880 points. Launch price was $50.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron T3000 and E2-2000 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. The E2-2000 is built on the Zacate (2011−2013) architecture. In PassMark, the Celeron T3000 scores 905 against the E2-2000's 880 — a 2.8% lead for the Celeron T3000. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron T3000 vs 0 kB on the E2-2000.

Feature	Celeron T3000	E2-2000
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	—	1.75 GHz
Base Clock	1.8 GHz	—
L3 Cache	1 MB L2 Cache	0 kB
L2 Cache	—	512K (per core)
Process	45 nm	40 nm-11%
Architecture	—	Zacate (2011−2013)
PassMark	905+3%	880

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron T3000 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the E2-2000 uses FT1 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.