C-50 vs Core i7-660UM

C-50 vs Core i7-660UM Performance Spectrum

C-50

2 / 2

1,282

+0.2%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Core i7-660UM

2 / 4

1,279

0.0%

Atom D2550

Pentium T3400

Pentium Dual-Core E2200

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 Core i7-660UM 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 Core i7-660UM: 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

✅+0.2% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 9W instead of 18W, a 9W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Core i7-660UM

2010

Why buy it

✅300% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,279 vs 1,282).
❌Launch MSRP is still $317 MSRP, while C-50 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌100% higher power demand at 18W vs 9W.

Quick Answers

So, is C-50 better than Core i7-660UM?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Core i7-660UM is ahead with a 2.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, C-50 pulls ahead with 0.2% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, C-50 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

C-50 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. C-50 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $317 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.2% better PassMark. Core i7-660UM only looks good on raw value math because it is a cheap legacy laptop chip, not because it is a real desktop gaming recommendation. It simply does not keep up in modern games, especially when the gap is already 2.6% in the shared gaming data.

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) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

C-50 vs Core i7-660UM 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.

Core i7-660UM

The Core i7-660UM is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 24 May 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Arrandale (2010−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.33 GHz, with boost up to 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1288. Thermal design power (TDP): 18 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-800. Passmark benchmark score: 1,279 points. Launch price was $317.

⚡

Processing Power

The C-50 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, matching the Core i7-660UM's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 1 GHz on the C-50 versus 2.4 GHz on the Core i7-660UM — a 82.4% clock advantage for the Core i7-660UM. The C-50 uses the Ontario (2011−2012) architecture (40 nm), while the Core i7-660UM uses Arrandale (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the C-50 scores 1,282 against the Core i7-660UM's 1,279 — a 0.2% lead for the C-50. L3 cache: 0 kB on the C-50 vs 4 MB (total) on the Core i7-660UM.

Feature	C-50	Core i7-660UM
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 4
Boost Clock	1 GHz	2.4 GHz+140%
Base Clock	—	1.33 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	4 MB (total)
L2 Cache	512K (per core)+100%	256 kB (per core)
Process	40 nm	32 nm-20%
Architecture	Ontario (2011−2012)	Arrandale (2010−2011)
PassMark	1,282	1,279
Geekbench 6 Single	—	250
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	600

🧠

Memory & Platform

The C-50 uses the FT1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Core i7-660UM uses BGA1288 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3-1066 memory speed. The Core i7-660UM supports up to 8 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (C-50) vs 2 (Core i7-660UM). PCIe lanes: 4 (C-50) vs 16 (Core i7-660UM) — the Core i7-660UM offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD BGA413 (C-50) and PM55,HM55,QM57,HM57 (Core i7-660UM).

Feature	C-50	Core i7-660UM
Socket	FT1	BGA1288
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
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	16+300%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (C-50) / VT-x, VT-d (Core i7-660UM). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 6250 (C-50) and HD Graphics (Core i7-660UM) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i7-660UM targets Budget.