Celeron T3300 vs E1-6010

Celeron T3300 vs E1-6010 Performance Spectrum

Celeron T3300

1,005

0.0%

1,006

+0.1%

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 T3300 vs E1-6010 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 T3300 vs E1-6010: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron T3300

2010

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,005 vs 1,006).
❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while E1-6010 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌250% higher power demand at 35W vs 10W.

E1-6010

2014

Why buy it

✅Draws 10W instead of 35W, a 25W reduction.

Trade-offs

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

Quick Answers

So, is E1-6010 better than Celeron T3300?

Yes. E1-6010 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.2% 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, E1-6010 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.2% 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, E1-6010 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

E1-6010 is still the much better call for a fresh build. E1-6010 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron T3300 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2010 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (11.7 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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?

E1-6010 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2014 vs 2010). That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron T3300 vs E1-6010 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron T3300

The Celeron T3300 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. Base frequency: 2 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 1,005 points. Launch price was $69.

E1-6010

The E1-6010 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Beema (2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.35 GHz. L2 cache: 1024 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FT3. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,006 points. Launch price was $50.

⚡

Processing Power

The E1-6010 is built on the Beema (2014) architecture. In PassMark, the Celeron T3300 scores 1,005 against the E1-6010's 1,006 — a 0.1% lead for the E1-6010.

Feature	Celeron T3300	E1-6010
Cores / Threads	—	2 / 2
Boost Clock	—	1.35 GHz
Base Clock	2 GHz	—
L3 Cache	1 MB	—
L2 Cache	—	1024 kB
Process	45 nm	28 nm-38%
Architecture	—	Beema (2014)
PassMark	1,005	1,006

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron T3300 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the E1-6010 uses FT3 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.