Core 2 Solo SU3300 vs Celeron 2950M
Core 2 Solo SU3300
Celeron 2950M
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Core 2 Solo SU3300 is positioned at rank 1211 and the Celeron 2950M is on rank 545, so the Celeron 2950M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Core 2 Solo SU3300
Performance Per Dollar Celeron 2950M
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Core 2 Solo SU3300 | Celeron 2950M |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($50) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Penryn (2008−2011) / 45 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Haswell (2013−2015) / 22 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Core 2 Solo SU3300 | Celeron 2950M |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($50) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
Performance Check
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core 2 Solo SU3300 and Celeron 2950M
Core 2 Solo SU3300
The Core 2 Solo SU3300 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 August 2008 (17 years ago). It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.2 GHz. L2 cache: 3 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: BGA956. Thermal design power (TDP): 3 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,247 points. Launch price was $262.
Celeron 2950M
The Celeron 2950M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: PGA946. Thermal design power (TDP): 37 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,238 points. Launch price was $75.
Processing Power
The Core 2 Solo SU3300 packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Celeron 2950M offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Celeron 2950M has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 1.2 GHz on the Core 2 Solo SU3300 versus 2 GHz on the Celeron 2950M — a 50% clock advantage for the Celeron 2950M. The Core 2 Solo SU3300 uses the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture (45 nm), while the Celeron 2950M uses Haswell (2013−2015) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Core 2 Solo SU3300 scores 1,247 against the Celeron 2950M's 1,238 — a 0.7% lead for the Core 2 Solo SU3300.
| Feature | Core 2 Solo SU3300 | Celeron 2950M |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 1 / 1 | 2 / 2+100% |
| Boost Clock | 1.2 GHz | 2 GHz+67% |
| Base Clock | — | 2 GHz |
| L3 Cache | — | 2 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB+1100% | 256K (per core) |
| Process | 45 nm | 22 nm-51% |
| Architecture | Penryn (2008−2011) | Haswell (2013−2015) |
| PassMark | 1,247 | 1,238 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 352 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 636 |
Memory & Platform
The Core 2 Solo SU3300 uses the BGA956 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron 2950M uses PGA946 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-800 on the Core 2 Solo SU3300 versus DDR3L-1600 on the Celeron 2950M — the Celeron 2950M supports 40% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 2950M supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 155.6% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (Core 2 Solo SU3300) vs 2 (Celeron 2950M). PCIe lanes: 0 (Core 2 Solo SU3300) vs 16 (Celeron 2950M) — the Celeron 2950M offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.
| Feature | Core 2 Solo SU3300 | Celeron 2950M |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | BGA956 | PGA946 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 3.0+173% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR2-800 | DDR3L-1600+50% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 4 GB | 32 GB+700% |
| RAM Channels | 1 | 2+100% |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 16 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support VT-x virtualization. The Celeron 2950M includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Haswell)), while the Core 2 Solo SU3300 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core 2 Solo SU3300 targets Mobile, Celeron 2950M targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 2950M rivals Pentium 2020M.
| Feature | Core 2 Solo SU3300 | Celeron 2950M |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | HD Graphics (Haswell) |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x | VT-x |
| Target Use | Mobile | Budget |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Core 2 Solo SU3300 and Celeron 2950M
