E-300 vs Celeron M 723

E-300

2 Cores2 Thrd18 WWMax: 1.3 GHz2011

Celeron M 723

1 Cores1 Thrd1 WWMax: 1.2 GHz2008

Performance Spectrum - CPU

E-300

2 / 2

1,176

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron M 723

1 / 1

1,180

+0.3%

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 M 723 is on rank 1153, so the E-300 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar E-300

#879

Atom x5-Z8300

MSRP: $20|Avg: N/A

1497%

#880

Atom Z3735G

MSRP: $17|Avg: N/A

1475%

#881

Core i5-480M

MSRP: $81|Avg: $77

1354%

#882

Core i5-460M

MSRP: $80|Avg: $129

1348%

#883

Core i5-2540M

MSRP: $266|Avg: $10

1336%

#885

Core i5-450M

MSRP: $32|Avg: $31

1290%

#886

Core i3-380M

MSRP: $49|Avg: $25

1237%

#887

Core i5-430M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $33

1235%

#888

Core 2 Duo T6600

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $4

1202%

#891

E-300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $20

100%

#892

Core i7-7820HK

MSRP: $378|Avg: N/A

100%

#895

Pentium B940

MSRP: $134|Avg: $11

99%

#896

Core i5-8305G

MSRP: $350|Avg: $350

99%

#897

Celeron 6305

MSRP: $107|Avg: $80

99%

#900

Core i7-8705G

MSRP: $400|Avg: $400

97%

#902

Pentium Dual Core T2410

MSRP: $100|Avg: $100

97%

#903

FX-8800P

MSRP: $150|Avg: $45

96%

#904

Core i7-8809G

MSRP: $450|Avg: $450

96%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Per Dollar Celeron M 723

#1141

Atom x5-Z8300

MSRP: $20|Avg: N/A

4003%

#1142

Atom Z3735G

MSRP: $17|Avg: N/A

3944%

#1143

Core i5-480M

MSRP: $81|Avg: $77

3621%

#1144

Core i5-460M

MSRP: $80|Avg: $129

3604%

#1145

Core i5-2540M

MSRP: $266|Avg: $10

3571%

#1147

Core i5-450M

MSRP: $32|Avg: $31

3449%

#1148

Core i3-380M

MSRP: $49|Avg: $25

3307%

#1149

Core i5-430M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $33

3302%

#1150

Core 2 Duo T6600

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $4

3213%

#1153

Celeron M 723

MSRP: $161|Avg: $161

100%

#1154

Core i7-3517UE

MSRP: $330|Avg: $35

98%

#1155

Core M-5Y51

MSRP: $281|Avg: $281

98%

#1156

Pentium N3530

MSRP: $161|Avg: $20

98%

#1157

Core i3-330E

MSRP: $177|Avg: $89

97%

#1159

Core i7-2640M

MSRP: $346|Avg: N/A

96%

#1161

Core M-5Y71

MSRP: $281|Avg: $281

96%

#1162

Core i7-2620M

MSRP: $346|Avg: N/A

96%

#1164

Celeron N3010

MSRP: $107|Avg: N/A

94%

#1165

Core i7-3537U

MSRP: $346|Avg: N/A

93%

#1166

Core M-5Y10a

MSRP: $281|Avg: $281

92%

#1167

Core M-5Y31

MSRP: $281|Avg: $30

92%

#1168

Core M-5Y10c

MSRP: $281|Avg: $281

92%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Comparison

About PassMark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

Performance Trade-off: The E-300 leads in gaming performance. However, the Celeron M 723 is the stronger candidate for professional workloads, offering 0.3% greater multi-core processing power.

Insight	E-300	Celeron M 723
Gaming	✅ Superior gaming performance	❌ Lower gaming performance
Workstation	❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks	✅ Better multi-core power
Price	✅ More affordable ($20)	⚠️ Higher cost ($161)
Longevity	🛑 Legacy (Zacate (2011−2013) / 40 nm)	🛑 Legacy (Penryn (2008−2011) / 45 nm)

💎 Value Proposition

Efficiency: Even within a comparison of older hardware, the E-300 stands out as the superior choice. It is effectively 88% cheaper ($20 vs $161) while identifying as the stronger performer.

Insight	E-300	Celeron M 723
Cost Efficiency	✅ Better overall value (+702%)	❌ Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	✅ More affordable ($20)	⚠️ Higher cost ($161)

Performance Check

Paired with RTX 4090

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.

E-300 Benchmark Check

Celeron M 723 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of E-300 and Celeron M 723

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 M 723

The Celeron M 723 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.2 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: BGA956. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,180 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The E-300 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Celeron M 723 offers 1 cores / 1 threads — the E-300 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 1.3 GHz on the E-300 versus 1.2 GHz on the Celeron M 723 — a 8% clock advantage for the E-300. The E-300 uses the Zacate (2011−2013) architecture (40 nm), while the Celeron M 723 uses Penryn (2008−2011) (45 nm). In PassMark, the E-300 scores 1,176 against the Celeron M 723's 1,180 — a 0.3% lead for the Celeron M 723.

Feature	E-300	Celeron M 723
Cores / Threads	2 / 2+100%	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1.3 GHz+8%	1.2 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	—
L2 Cache	512K (per core)	1 MB+100%
Process	40 nm-11%	45 nm
Architecture	Zacate (2011−2013)	Penryn (2008−2011)
PassMark	1,176	1,180
Geekbench 6 Single	—	100
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	100

🧠

Memory & Platform

The E-300 uses the FT1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron M 723 uses BGA956 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1066 on the E-300 versus DDR2-800 on the Celeron M 723 — the E-300 supports 40% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 8 GB of RAM. Memory channels: 1 (E-300) vs 2 (Celeron M 723). Both provide 0 PCIe lanes.

Feature	E-300	Celeron M 723
Socket	FT1	BGA956
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0+82%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1066+50%	DDR2-800
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	8 GB
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	❌	❌
PCIe Lanes	0	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (E-300) vs None (Celeron M 723). The E-300 includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 6310), while the Celeron M 723 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: E-300 targets Budget Mobile, Celeron M 723 targets Legacy Embedded. Direct competitor: Celeron M 723 rivals Core Solo U2100.

Feature	E-300	Celeron M 723
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	Radeon HD 6310	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	AMD-V	None
Target Use	Budget Mobile	Legacy Embedded

💰

Value Analysis

The E-300 launched at $60 MSRP, while the Celeron M 723 debuted at $161. At current prices ($20 vs $161), the E-300 is $141 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the E-300 delivers 58.8 pts/$ vs 7.3 pts/$ for the Celeron M 723 — making the E-300 the 155.7% better value option.