Celeron T3300 vs E2-3000

Celeron T3300 vs E2-3000 Performance Spectrum

Celeron T3300

1,005

+1.5%

990

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 T3300 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 T3300 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 T3300

2010

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌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

✅Draws 15W instead of 35W, a 20W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (990 vs 1,005).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron T3300 better than E2-3000?

Yes. Celeron T3300 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you 1.5% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron T3300 has the edge because it leads the single-thread side of this matchup with 1.5% stronger overall PassMark.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron T3300 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.5% better PassMark.

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

Celeron T3300 is the better buy right now. Celeron T3300 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $86 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 1.5% higher PassMark. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (11.7 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

E2-3000 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2010). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron T3300 vs E2-3000 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.

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 T3300 scores 1,005 against the E2-3000's 990 — a 1.5% lead for the Celeron T3300. L3 cache: 1 MB on the Celeron T3300 vs 0 kB on the E2-3000.

Feature	Celeron T3300	E2-3000
Cores / Threads	—	2 / 2
Boost Clock	—	1.65 GHz
Base Clock	2 GHz	—
L3 Cache	1 MB	0 kB
L2 Cache	—	1024 kB
Process	45 nm	28 nm-38%
Architecture	—	Kabini (2013−2014)
PassMark	1,005+2%	990

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron T3300 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the E2-3000 uses FT3 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.