Notebookcheck Logo

Intel Celeron Dual-Core T3300 vs Intel Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 vs Intel Celeron Dual-Core T3100

Intel Celeron Dual-Core T3300

► remove from comparison Intel T3300

The Intel Celeron Dual-Core T3300 is a entry-level dual core laptop processor. It is based on the Penryn Core but features less power saving features as the Pentium or Core 2 Duo CPUs. Technically the Celeron T3300 is a stripped down Pentium T4200 and therefore the performance should be on the same level. 

Still the Celeron T3300 may no support Enhanced Speedstep (and other techniques), therefore the average power consumption should be higher leading to a lower battery runtime.

The performance of the entry level dual-core CPU should be sufficient for office, Internet normal image processing. Demanding tasks like intensive 3D gaming, HD video cutting, or rendering will be limited by the performance of the Celeron T3300.

The Celeron Dual-Core T3300 is delivered in a 478-Pin FCPGA Package and fits in the Socket P for laptops.

Intel Celeron Dual-Core SU2300

► remove from comparison

The Intel Celeron SU2300 is a CULV processor for small and light laptops. It is the slowest dual core CPU based on the Penryn core and offers not all power saving features of the architecture. Furthermore, the Trusted Execution Technology feature are not available.

Due to the low clock rate, the performance of the SU 2300 Celeron is limited, but still noticeable better than Atom netbooks.

 

Intel Celeron Dual-Core T3100

► remove from comparison Intel T3100

The Intel Celeron T3100 or Celeron Dual-Core T3100 is an entry level dual core CPU for laptops. It is based on the 45nm Penryn core but features only 1MB Level 2 cache and many functions of the core are disabled. Only the 64 Bit extensions and the Execute Disable Bit can be used. Hardware Virtualization functions, Intel Enhanced Speedstep and other power saving features are disabled leading to a higher power consumption than a similar Core 2 Duo / Pentium processor.

The performance of the T3100 is only suited for less demanding tasks like Office, Web, entry level image manipulation and SD video cutting. For demanding games, the T3100 delivers too less performance.

ModelIntel Celeron Dual-Core T3300Intel Celeron Dual-Core SU2300Intel Celeron Dual-Core T3100
SeriesIntel Celeron Dual-CoreIntel Celeron Dual-CoreIntel Celeron Dual-Core
CodenamePenrynPenrynPenryn
Series: Celeron Dual-Core Penryn
Intel Celeron Dual-Core T35002.1 GHz2 / 2
» Intel Celeron Dual-Core T33002 GHz2 / 2
Intel Celeron Dual-Core T31001.9 GHz2 / 2
Intel Celeron Dual-Core SU23001.2 GHz2 / 2
Intel Celeron Dual-Core T35002.1 GHz2 / 2
Intel Celeron Dual-Core T33002 GHz2 / 2
Intel Celeron Dual-Core T31001.9 GHz2 / 2
» Intel Celeron Dual-Core SU23001.2 GHz2 / 2
Intel Celeron Dual-Core T35002.1 GHz2 / 2
Intel Celeron Dual-Core T33002 GHz2 / 2
» Intel Celeron Dual-Core T31001.9 GHz2 / 2
Intel Celeron Dual-Core SU23001.2 GHz2 / 2
Clock2000 MHz1200 MHz1900 MHz
FSB800800800
L1 Cache128 KB128 KB
L2 Cache1 MB1 MB1 MB
Cores / Threads2 / 22 / 22 / 2
TDP35 Watt10 Watt35 Watt
45 nm45 nm45 nm1.00-1.250V
SocketSocket P 478BGA956BGA479, PGA478
FeaturesSSE4.1, EM64T, Execute Disable BitVt, Speedstep, Thermal Monitor 2Intel 64, Execute Disable Bit
Architecturex86x86x86
Announced
Transistors410 Million410 Million
Die Size107 mm2107 mm2
max. Temp.100 °C105 °C
$134 U.S.
ManufacturerIntel Celeron Dual-Core SU2300Intel Celeron Dual-Core T3100

Benchmarks

Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Rend. Single (32bit)
100%
1 SU2300 +
1250 Points (11%)
152%
1 T3100 +
1900 Points (17%)
Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Rend. Multi (32bit)
100%
1 SU2300 +
2380 Points (3%)
157%
1 T3100 +
3740 Points (5%)
Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Rend. Multi (64bit)
100%
1 SU2300 +
2367 Points (2%)
Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Rend. Single (64bit)
100%
1 SU2300 +
1256 Points (8%)
wPrime 1.55 - wPrime 1.55 32m *
100%
1 T3300 +
39.9 s (21%)
3DMark 06 - CPU - 3DMark 06 - CPU
100%
1 SU2300 +
1000 Points (2%)
169%
1 T3100 +
1687 Points (4%)
Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 1M - Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 1M *
28.6 s (6%)
44 s (10%)
29.8 s (6%)
Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 2M - Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 2M *
100%
1 SU2300 +
103 s (4%)
101%
1 T3100 +
71 s (3%)
SiSoft Sandra Dhrystone (MIPS) - SiSoft Sandra Dhrystone (MIPS)
100%
1 SU2300 +
10240 MIPS (5%)
159%
1 T3100 +
16260 MIPS (8%)
SiSoft Sandra Whetstone (MFLOPS) - SiSoft Sandra Whetstone (MFLOPS)
100%
1 SU2300 +
8800 MFLOPS (7%)
150%
1 T3100 +
13200 MFLOPS (10%)

Average Benchmarks Intel Celeron Dual-Core T3300 → 100% n=1

Average Benchmarks Intel Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 → 96% n=1

Average Benchmarks Intel Celeron Dual-Core T3100 → 100% n=1

- Range of benchmark values for this graphics card
- Average benchmark values for this graphics card
* Smaller numbers mean a higher performance
1 This benchmark is not used for the average calculation

v1.17
log 07. 03:22:26

#0 checking url part for id 568 +0s ... 0s

#1 checking url part for id 496 +0s ... 0s

#2 checking url part for id 618 +0s ... 0s

#3 not redirecting to Ajax server +0s ... 0s

#4 did not recreate cache, as it is less than 5 days old! Created at Sat, 02 Jul 2022 13:13:02 +0200 +0s ... 0s

#5 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.004s ... 0.004s

#6 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s ... 0.005s

#7 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.005s

#8 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.005s

#9 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s ... 0.007s

#10 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.007s

#11 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.007s

#12 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.007s

#13 composed specs +0s ... 0.007s

#14 did output specs +0s ... 0.007s

#15 getting avg benchmarks for device 568 +0s ... 0.007s

#16 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.007s

#17 got single benchmarks 568 +0.005s ... 0.012s

#18 getting avg benchmarks for device 496 +0s ... 0.013s

#19 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s ... 0.013s

#20 got single benchmarks 496 +0.009s ... 0.023s

#21 getting avg benchmarks for device 618 +0s ... 0.023s

#22 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.023s

#23 got single benchmarks 618 +0.005s ... 0.029s

#24 got avg benchmarks for devices +0s ... 0.029s

#25 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.029s

#26 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.029s

#27 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.03s

#28 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.03s

#29 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.03s

#30 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.031s

#31 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.031s

#32 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.031s

#33 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.031s

#34 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.032s

#35 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.032s

#36 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.032s

#37 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.033s

#38 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.033s

#39 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.033s

#40 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.034s

#41 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.034s

#42 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.034s

#43 min, max, avg, median took s +0s ... 0.034s

#44 return log +0s ... 0.034s

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Benchmarks / Tech > Processor Comparison - Head 2 Head
Redaktion, 2017-09- 8 (Update: 2017-09-11)