E-300 vs Celeron N3150
E-300
Celeron N3150
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 N3150 is on rank 208, so the Celeron N3150 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 N3150
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | E-300 | Celeron N3150 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 (Braswell (2015−2016) / 14 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | E-300 | Celeron N3150 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 N3150
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 N3150
The Celeron N3150 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 April 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Braswell (2015−2016) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.08 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: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,177 points. Launch price was $107.
Processing Power
The E-300 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Celeron N3150 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Celeron N3150 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1.3 GHz on the E-300 versus 2.08 GHz on the Celeron N3150 — a 46.2% clock advantage for the Celeron N3150. The E-300 uses the Zacate (2011−2013) architecture (40 nm), while the Celeron N3150 uses Braswell (2015−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the E-300 scores 1,176 against the Celeron N3150's 1,177 — a 0.1% lead for the Celeron N3150. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.
| Feature | E-300 | Celeron N3150 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 4 / 4+100% |
| Boost Clock | 1.3 GHz | 2.08 GHz+60% |
| Base Clock | — | 1.6 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 512K (per core) | 2 MB+300% |
| Process | 40 nm | 14 nm-65% |
| Architecture | Zacate (2011−2013) | Braswell (2015−2016) |
| PassMark | 1,176 | 1,177 |
Memory & Platform
The E-300 uses the FT1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron N3150 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1066 on the E-300 versus 1600 on the Celeron N3150 — the Celeron N3150 supports 199.3% 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 N3150). PCIe lanes: 0 (E-300) vs 4 (Celeron N3150) — the Celeron N3150 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.
| Feature | E-300 | Celeron N3150 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | FT1 | FCBGA1170 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0 | PCIe 3.0+50% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-1066 | 1600+53233% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 8 GB+104857500% | 8 |
| RAM Channels | 1 | 2+100% |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 4 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (E-300) vs true (Celeron N3150). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 6310 (E-300) and Intel HD Graphics (Braswell) (Celeron N3150) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: E-300 targets Budget Mobile. Direct competitor: Celeron N3150 rivals AMD E2-7110.
| Feature | E-300 | Celeron N3150 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | Yes |
| IGPU Model | Radeon HD 6310 | Intel HD Graphics (Braswell) |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | AMD-V | true |
| Target Use | Budget Mobile | — |
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 N3150
