Core 2 Solo SU3300 vs Celeron J3160
Core 2 Solo SU3300
Celeron J3160
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 J3160 is on rank 485, so the Celeron J3160 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 J3160
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Core 2 Solo SU3300 | Celeron J3160 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($50) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Penryn (2008−2011) / 45 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Airmont (2016) / 14 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Core 2 Solo SU3300 | Celeron J3160 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 J3160
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 J3160
The Celeron J3160 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 15 January 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Airmont (2016) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.24 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR3L-1600. Passmark benchmark score: 1,250 points. Launch price was $107.
Processing Power
The Core 2 Solo SU3300 packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Celeron J3160 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Celeron J3160 has 3 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1.2 GHz on the Core 2 Solo SU3300 versus 2.24 GHz on the Celeron J3160 — a 60.5% clock advantage for the Celeron J3160. The Core 2 Solo SU3300 uses the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture (45 nm), while the Celeron J3160 uses Airmont (2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core 2 Solo SU3300 scores 1,247 against the Celeron J3160's 1,250 — a 0.2% lead for the Celeron J3160.
| Feature | Core 2 Solo SU3300 | Celeron J3160 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 1 / 1 | 4 / 4+300% |
| Boost Clock | 1.2 GHz | 2.24 GHz+87% |
| Base Clock | — | 1.6 GHz |
| L3 Cache | — | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB+50% | 2 MB |
| Process | 45 nm | 14 nm-69% |
| Architecture | Penryn (2008−2011) | Airmont (2016) |
| PassMark | 1,247 | 1,250 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 350 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 650 |
Memory & Platform
The Core 2 Solo SU3300 uses the BGA956 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron J3160 uses FCBGA1170 (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 J3160 — the Celeron J3160 supports 40% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron J3160 supports up to 8 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (Core 2 Solo SU3300) vs 2 (Celeron J3160). PCIe lanes: 0 (Core 2 Solo SU3300) vs 4 (Celeron J3160) — the Celeron J3160 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.
| Feature | Core 2 Solo SU3300 | Celeron J3160 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | BGA956 | FCBGA1170 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 3.0+173% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR2-800 | DDR3L-1600+50% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 4 GB | 8 GB+100% |
| RAM Channels | 1 | 2+100% |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 4 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support VT-x virtualization. The Celeron J3160 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics 400), while the Core 2 Solo SU3300 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core 2 Solo SU3300 targets Mobile, Celeron J3160 targets Low Power. Direct competitor: Celeron J3160 rivals Pentium J3710.
| Feature | Core 2 Solo SU3300 | Celeron J3160 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | HD Graphics 400 |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x | VT-x |
| Target Use | Mobile | Low Power |
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 J3160
