CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 430 vs E3300 among all CPUs

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

Sky Diver and Cloud Gate

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

5

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Celeron E3300 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Celeron E3300  based on its performance and single-core performance.

See full details

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Celeron M 430

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron M 430

Report a correction
Significantly lower typical power consumption 28.44W vs 52.81W More than 45% lower typical power consumption
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
Significantly lower annual home energy cost 8.43 $/year vs 15.66 $/year More than 45% lower annual home energy cost
Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost 30.66 $/year vs 56.94 $/year More than 45% lower annual commercial energy cost
Front view of Intel Celeron E3300

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron E3300

Report a correction
Much better geekbench 3 AES single core score 106,700 MB/s vs 74,150 MB/s Around 45% better geekbench 3 AES single core score
Much better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score 2,220 vs 651 Around 3.5x better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score
Much newer manufacturing process 45 nm vs 65 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Higher clock speed 2.5 GHz vs 1.8 GHz Around 40% higher clock speed
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for maximum performance when needed, while conserving power and minimizing heat production when not needed
Has virtualization support Yes vs No Somewhat common; Boosts performance of virtual machines
Much better performance per dollar 2.19 pt/$ vs 1.64 pt/$ Around 35% better performance per dollar
Higher Maximum operating temperature 74.1 °C vs 60.4 °C Around 25% higher Maximum operating temperature
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.93 GHz vs 3.43 GHz Around 15% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Newer Jul, 2009 vs Apr, 2007 Release date over 2 years later
More cores 2 vs 1 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.61 GHz vs 3.67 GHz More than 25% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron M 430 vs E3300

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Celeron M 430
74,150 MB/s
Celeron E3300
106,700 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Celeron M 430  vs
E3300 
Clock speed 1.8 GHz 2.5 GHz
Cores Single core Dual core
Socket type
LGA 775
478

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing No No
Has virtualization support No Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
SSE3
SSE
Supplemental SSE3
Supports dynamic frequency scaling No Yes

power consumption

TDP 35W 65W
Annual home energy cost 8.43 $/year 15.66 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 30.66 $/year 56.94 $/year
Performance per watt 1.73 pt/W 1.58 pt/W
Typical power consumption 28.44W 52.81W

bus

Architecture FSB FSB
Number of links 1 1
Clock speed 800 MHz 800 MHz

details

Celeron M 430  vs
E3300 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 1 2
L2 cache 1 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 1 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 65 nm 45 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 9 12
Voltage range 1 - 1.34V 0.85 - 1.36V
Operating temperature Unknown - 60.4°C Unknown - 74.1°C

overclocking

Overclock popularity 1 3
Overclocked clock speed 3.43 GHz 3.93 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.67 GHz 4.61 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.43 GHz 3.93 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU None None
Label N/A N/A
Latest DirectX N/A N/A
Number of displays supported N/A N/A
GPU clock speed N/A N/A
Turbo clock speed N/A N/A
3DMark06 N/A N/A
Intel Celeron M 430
Report a correction
Intel Celeron E3300
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus