C-50 vs Celeron E3500

C-50 vs Celeron E3500 Performance Spectrum

C-50

2 / 2

1,282

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron E3500

2 / 2

1,290

+0.6%

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.

C-50 vs Celeron E3500 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

C-50 vs Celeron E3500: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

C-50

2011

Why buy it

✅Draws 9W instead of 65W, a 56W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon HD 6250, while Celeron E3500 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,282 vs 1,290).

Celeron E3500

2010

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $62 MSRP, while C-50 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌622.2% higher power demand at 65W vs 9W.
❌No integrated graphics, while C-50 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron E3500 better than C-50?

Yes. Celeron E3500 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.6% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron E3500 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.1% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron E3500 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.6% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Celeron E3500 is the better buy right now. Celeron E3500 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $62 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (20.8 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

C-50 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2010). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

C-50 vs Celeron E3500 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

C-50

The C-50 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 4 January 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Ontario (2011−2012) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 40 nm process technology. Socket: FT1. Thermal design power (TDP): 9 Watt. Memory support: DDR3 Single-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 1,282 points. Launch price was $69.

Celeron E3500

The Celeron E3500 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 29 August 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Wolfdale (2008−2010) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.7 GHz, with boost up to 2.7 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB (total). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,290 points. Launch price was $62.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the C-50 and Celeron E3500 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1 GHz on the C-50 versus 2.7 GHz on the Celeron E3500 — a 91.9% clock advantage for the Celeron E3500. The C-50 uses the Ontario (2011−2012) architecture (40 nm), while the Celeron E3500 uses Wolfdale (2008−2010) (45 nm). In PassMark, the C-50 scores 1,282 against the Celeron E3500's 1,290 — a 0.6% lead for the Celeron E3500. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	C-50	Celeron E3500
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1 GHz	2.7 GHz+170%
Base Clock	—	2.7 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512K (per core)+51100%	1 MB (total)
Process	40 nm-11%	45 nm
Architecture	Ontario (2011−2012)	Wolfdale (2008−2010)
PassMark	1,282	1,290
Geekbench 6 Single	—	347
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	624

🧠

Memory & Platform

The C-50 uses the FT1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron E3500 uses LGA775 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3-1066 memory speed. The Celeron E3500 supports up to 8 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (C-50) vs 2 (Celeron E3500). PCIe lanes: 4 (C-50) vs 0 (Celeron E3500) — the C-50 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD BGA413 (C-50) and G31,G41,P45 (Celeron E3500).

Feature	C-50	Celeron E3500
Socket	FT1	LGA775
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0+82%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1066	DDR3-1066
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	8 GB+100%
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	4	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (C-50) / VT-x (Celeron E3500). The C-50 includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 6250), while the Celeron E3500 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron E3500 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron E3500 rivals Pentium E5200.