Celeron T3100 vs E2-3000

CPU

GPU

Celeron T3100

35 WW2008

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

E2-3000

2 Cores2 Thrd15 WWMax: 1.65 GHz2013

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Celeron T3100 vs E2-3000 Performance Spectrum

Celeron T3100

945

0.0%

990

+4.8%

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 T3100 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 T3100 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 T3100

2008

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than E2-3000 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (945 vs 990).
❌Launch MSRP is still $62 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: +4.1% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 15W instead of 35W, a 20W reduction.

Trade-offs

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

Quick Answers

So, is E2-3000 better than Celeron T3100?

Yes. E2-3000 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 4.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 4.8% 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 4.1% 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, E2-3000 is the stronger fit. You are getting 4.8% 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 $62 MSRP, and it still gives you a 4.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron T3100 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2008 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (15.2 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on PGA478.

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 2008). That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron T3100 vs E2-3000 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron T3100

The Celeron T3100 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. Base frequency: 1.9 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 945 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

The E2-3000 is built on the Kabini (2013−2014) architecture. In PassMark, the Celeron T3100 scores 945 against the E2-3000's 990 — a 4.7% lead for the E2-3000. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron T3100 vs 0 kB on the E2-3000.

Feature	Celeron T3100	E2-3000
Cores / Threads	—	2 / 2
Boost Clock	—	1.65 GHz
Base Clock	1.9 GHz	—
L3 Cache	1 MB L2 Cache	0 kB
L2 Cache	—	1024 kB
Process	45 nm	28 nm-38%
Architecture	—	Kabini (2013−2014)
PassMark	945	990+5%
Geekbench 6 Single	350	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	650	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron T3100 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the E2-3000 uses FT3 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.