E-300 vs Celeron G465

The E-300 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Celeron G465 offers 1 cores / 2 threads — the E-300 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 1.3 GHz on the E-300 versus 1.9 GHz on the Celeron G465 — a 37.5% clock advantage for the Celeron G465. The E-300 uses the Zacate (2011−2013) architecture (40 nm), while the Celeron G465 uses Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the E-300 scores 1,176 against the Celeron G465's 1,185 — a 0.8% lead for the Celeron G465. L3 cache: 0 kB on the E-300 vs 1.5 MB on the Celeron G465.

The E-300 uses the FT1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron G465 uses LGA1155 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3-1066 memory speed. The Celeron G465 supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 120% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (E-300) vs 2 (Celeron G465). PCIe lanes: 0 (E-300) vs 16 (Celeron G465) — the Celeron G465 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (E-300) vs VT-x (Celeron G465). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 6310 (E-300) and HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (Celeron G465) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: E-300 targets Budget Mobile, Celeron G465 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron G465 rivals Pentium G630.

The E-300 launched at $60 MSRP, while the Celeron G465 debuted at $70. At current prices ($20 vs $37), the E-300 is $17 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the E-300 delivers 58.8 pts/$ vs 32.0 pts/$ for the Celeron G465 — making the E-300 the 59% better value option.