E-300 vs Celeron 3755U
E-300
Celeron 3755U
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 E-300 is positioned at rank 891 and the Celeron 3755U is on rank 348, so the Celeron 3755U offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar E-300
Performance Per Dollar Celeron 3755U
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | E-300 | Celeron 3755U |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($20) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Zacate (2011−2013) / 40 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Broadwell-U (2015) / 14 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | E-300 | Celeron 3755U |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($20) | ✅ 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 E-300 and Celeron 3755U
E-300
The E-300 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 22 August 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Zacate (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.3 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 40 nm process technology. Socket: FT1. Thermal design power (TDP): 18 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,176 points. Launch price was $69.
Celeron 3755U
The Celeron 3755U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 March 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell-U (2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.7 GHz, with boost up to 1.7 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1168. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,182 points. Launch price was $107.
Processing Power
Both the E-300 and Celeron 3755U share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.3 GHz on the E-300 versus 1.7 GHz on the Celeron 3755U — a 26.7% clock advantage for the Celeron 3755U. The E-300 uses the Zacate (2011−2013) architecture (40 nm), while the Celeron 3755U uses Broadwell-U (2015) (14 nm). In PassMark, the E-300 scores 1,176 against the Celeron 3755U's 1,182 — a 0.5% lead for the Celeron 3755U. L3 cache: 0 kB on the E-300 vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 3755U.
| Feature | E-300 | Celeron 3755U |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 1.3 GHz | 1.7 GHz+31% |
| Base Clock | — | 1.7 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 2 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 512K (per core)+100% | 256K (per core) |
| Process | 40 nm | 14 nm-65% |
| Architecture | Zacate (2011−2013) | Broadwell-U (2015) |
| PassMark | 1,176 | 1,182 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 625 |
Memory & Platform
The E-300 uses the FT1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 3755U uses FCBGA1168 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3-1066 memory speed. The Celeron 3755U supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (E-300) vs 2 (Celeron 3755U). PCIe lanes: 0 (E-300) vs 12 (Celeron 3755U) — the Celeron 3755U offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.
| Feature | E-300 | Celeron 3755U |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | FT1 | FCBGA1168 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0 | PCIe 3.0+50% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-1066 | DDR3L-1600 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 8 GB | 16 GB+100% |
| RAM Channels | 1 | 2+100% |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 12 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (E-300) vs VT-x, VT-d (Celeron 3755U). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 6310 (E-300) and HD Graphics (Broadwell) (Celeron 3755U) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: E-300 targets Budget Mobile, Celeron 3755U targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 3755U rivals Pentium 3825U.
| Feature | E-300 | Celeron 3755U |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | Yes |
| IGPU Model | Radeon HD 6310 | HD Graphics (Broadwell) |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | AMD-V | VT-x, VT-d |
| Target Use | Budget 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 E-300 and Celeron 3755U
