Select any two CPUs for comparison
VS

Gaming Performance Comparison

Recommended System Requirements
Game Celeron E3500 Dual-Core 2.7GHz Athlon 5050e Dual Core
Cyberpunk 2077 400% 607%
Hitman 3 574% 852%
Assassins Creed: Valhalla 574% 852%
Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War 385% 585%
FIFA 21 368% 562%
Grand Theft Auto VI 722% 1063%
Far Cry 6 689% 1016%
Genshin Impact 279% 436%
Battlefield 6 600% 890%
Resident Evil 8 456% 686%

In terms of overall gaming performance, the Intel Celeron E3500 Dual-Core 2.7GHz is noticeably better than the AMD Athlon 5050e Dual Core when it comes to running the latest games. This also means it will be less likely to bottleneck more powerful GPUs, allowing them to achieve more of their gaming performance potential.

The Celeron E3500 Dual-Core was released over a year more recently than the Athlon 5050e Dual, and so the Celeron E3500 Dual-Core is likely to have better levels of support, and will be more optimized for running the latest games.

The Celeron E3500 Dual-Core and the Athlon 5050e Dual both have 2 cores, and so are quite likely to struggle with the latest games, or at least bottleneck high-end graphics cards when running them. With a decent accompanying GPU, the Celeron E3500 Dual-Core and the Athlon 5050e Dual may still be able to run slightly older games fairly effectively.

More important for gaming than the number of cores and threads is the clock rate. Problematically, unless the two CPUs are from the same family, this can only serve as a general guide and nothing like an exact comparison, because the clock cycles per instruction (CPI) will vary so much.

The Celeron E3500 Dual-Core and Athlon 5050e Dual are not from the same family of CPUs, so their clock speeds are by no means directly comparable. Bear in mind, then, that while the Celeron E3500 Dual-Core has a 0.1 GHz faster frequency, this is not always an indicator that it will be superior in performance, despite frequency being crucial when trying to avoid GPU bottlenecking. As such, we need to look elsewhere for more reliable comparisons.

Aside from the clock rate, the next-most important CPU features for PC game performance are L2 and L3 cache size. Faster than RAM, the more cache available, the more data that can be stored for lightning-fast retrieval. L1 Cache is not usually an issue anymore for gaming, with most high-end CPUs eking out about the same L1 performance, and L2 is more important than L3 - but L3 is still important if you want to reach the highest levels of performance. Bear in mind that although it is better to have a larger cache, the larger it is, the higher the latency, so a balance has to be struck.

The Celeron E3500 Dual-Core and the Athlon 5050e Dual have the same L2 cache size, and neither CPU appears to have an L3 cache. In this case, the Athlon 5050e Dual has a 128 KB bigger L1 cache, so would probably provide better performance than the Celeron E3500 Dual-Core, at least in this area.

The maximum Thermal Design Power is the power in Watts that the CPU will consume in the worst case scenario. The lithography is the semiconductor manufacturing technology being used to create the CPU - the smaller this is, the more transistors that can be fit into the CPU, and the closer the connections. For both the lithography and the TDP, it is the lower the better, because a lower number means a lower amount of power is necessary to run the CPU, and consequently a lower amount of heat is produced.

The Athlon 5050e Dual has a 20 Watt lower Maximum TDP than the Celeron E3500 Dual-Core. However, the Celeron E3500 Dual-Core was created with a 20 nm smaller manufacturing technology. Overall, by taking both into account, the Celeron E3500 Dual-Core is likely the CPU with the lower heat production and power requirements, by a small amount.

CPU Core Details

CPU CodenameWolfdale-3MBrisbane
MoBo SocketLGA 775/ Socket TSocket AM2
Notebook CPUnono
Release Date29 Aug 201021 Oct 2008
CPU LinkGD LinkGD Link
Approved

CPU Technical Specifications

CPU Cores2vs2
Clock Speed2.7 GHzvs2.6 GHz
Turbo Frequency-vs-
Max TDP65 Wvs45 W
Lithography45 nmvs65 nm
Bit Width-vs-
Virtualization Technologynovsno
Comparison

CPU Cache and Memory

L1 Cache Size128 KBvs256 KB
L2 Cache Size1024 KBvs1024 KB
L3 Cache Size-vs-
ECC Memory Supportnovsno
Comparison

CPU Graphics

Graphicsnono

CPU Package and Version Specifications

Package Size-vs-
Revision-vs-
PCIe Revision-vs-
PCIe Configurations-vs-

Gaming Performance Value

Performance Value

CPU Mini Review

Mini ReviewWolfdale is the code name for a processor from Intel that is sold in varying configurations as Core 2 Duo, Celeron, Pentium and Xeon. In Intel's Tick-Tock cycle, the 2007/2008 "Tick" was Penryn microarchitecture, the shrink of the Core microarchitecture to 45 nanometers as CPUID model 23. This replaced the Conroe processor with Wolfdale. The Wolfdale chips come in two sizes, with 6 MB and 3 MB L2 cache, the smaller version is commonly called Wolfdale-3M. The mobile version of Wolfdale is Penryn and the dual-socket server version is Wolfdale-DP. The Yorkfield desktop processor is a quad-core Multi-chip module of Wolfdale. Wolfdale has been replaced by Nehalem based Clarkdale and its Sandy Bridge successor.On April 21, 2005, less than a week after the release of Venice and San Diego, AMD announced its next addition to the Athlon 64 line, the Athlon 64 X2. Released on May 31, 2005, it also initially had two different core revisions available to the public, Manchester and Toledo, the only appreciable difference between them being the amount of L2 cache. Both were released only for Socket 939. The Athlon 64 X2 was received very well by reviewers and the general public, with a general consensus emerging that AMD's implementation of multi-core was superior to that of the competing Pentium D. Some felt initially that the X2 would cause market confusion with regard to price points since the new processor was targeted at the same enthusiast, US$350 and above market already occupied by AMD's existing socket 939 Athlon 64s. AMD's official breakdown of the chips placed the Athlon X2 aimed at a segment they called the prosumer, along with digital media fans. The Athlon 64 was targeted at the mainstream consumer, and the Athlon FX at gamers.