Celeron 1000M vs Celeron 2961Y

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.

Celeron 1000M vs Celeron 2961Y 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.

Celeron 1000M vs Celeron 2961Y: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 1000M

2013

Why buy it

✅33.3% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 12) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,070 vs 1,085).
❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while Celeron 2961Y mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Celeron 2961Y

2013

Why buy it

✅+1.4% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

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

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 2961Y better than Celeron 1000M?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron 1000M is ahead with 63.6% higher max boost clock. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 2961Y pulls ahead with 1.4% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 2961Y is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.4% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron 2961Y is still the much better call for a fresh build. Celeron 2961Y comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you 1.4% better PassMark. Celeron 1000M only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2013 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (12.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on PGA988.

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

Celeron 2961Y makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron 1000M vs Celeron 2961Y Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 1000M

The Celeron 1000M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 January 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.8 GHz, with boost up to 1.8 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,070 points. Launch price was $86.

Celeron 2961Y

The Celeron 2961Y is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 December 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.1 GHz, with boost up to 1.1 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1168. Thermal design power (TDP): 11.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,085 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 1000M and Celeron 2961Y share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.8 GHz on the Celeron 1000M versus 1.1 GHz on the Celeron 2961Y — a 48.3% clock advantage for the Celeron 1000M (base: 1.8 GHz vs 1.1 GHz). The Celeron 1000M uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Celeron 2961Y uses Haswell (2013−2015) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 1000M scores 1,070 against the Celeron 2961Y's 1,085 — a 1.4% lead for the Celeron 2961Y. Both processors carry 2 MB (total) of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron 1000M	Celeron 2961Y
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.8 GHz+64%	1.1 GHz
Base Clock	1.8 GHz+64%	1.1 GHz
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	2 MB (total)
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	256K (per core)
Process	22 nm	22 nm
Architecture	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)	Haswell (2013−2015)
PassMark	1,070	1,085+1%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 1000M uses the PGA988 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron 2961Y uses FCBGA1168 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3-1600 memory speed. The Celeron 1000M supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 16 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Celeron 1000M) vs 12 (Celeron 2961Y) — the Celeron 1000M offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel FCPGA988 (Celeron 1000M) and Wildcat Point-LP (Celeron 2961Y).

Feature	Celeron 1000M	Celeron 2961Y
Socket	PGA988	FCBGA1168
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600	DDR3L-1600
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB+100%	16 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16+33%	12

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Celeron 1000M) / VT-x (Celeron 2961Y). Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) (Celeron 1000M) and HD Graphics (Haswell) (Celeron 2961Y) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 2961Y targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 2961Y rivals Pentium 2117U.