Celeron 1017U vs Core i3-380UM

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 1017U vs Core i3-380UM 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 1017U vs Core i3-380UM: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 1017U

2013

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (2 MB vs 3 MB).

Core i3-380UM

2010

Why buy it

✅+50% larger total L3 cache (3 MB vs 2 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,502 vs 1,508).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 1017U better than Core i3-380UM?

Yes. Celeron 1017U is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.4% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron 1017U is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.2% 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 1017U is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.4% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron 1017U still makes the most sense overall. Celeron 1017U comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Celeron 1017U makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 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.

Celeron 1017U vs Core i3-380UM Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 1017U

The Celeron 1017U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1023. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,508 points. Launch price was $69.

Core i3-380UM

The Core i3-380UM is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 October 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 0.03 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1288. Thermal design power (TDP): 18 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,502 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron 1017U packs 2 cores / 2 threads, matching the Core i3-380UM's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 1.6 GHz on the Celeron 1017U versus 0.03 GHz on the Core i3-380UM — a 192.6% clock advantage for the Celeron 1017U (base: 1.6 GHz vs 1.33 GHz). The Celeron 1017U uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Core i3-380UM uses Arrandale (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 1017U scores 1,508 against the Core i3-380UM's 1,502 — a 0.4% lead for the Celeron 1017U. L3 cache: 2 MB on the Celeron 1017U vs 3 MB on the Core i3-380UM.

Feature	Celeron 1017U	Core i3-380UM
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 4
Boost Clock	1.6 GHz+5233%	0.03 GHz
Base Clock	1.6 GHz+20%	1.33 GHz
L3 Cache	2 MB	3 MB+50%
L2 Cache	512 kB	512 kB
Process	22 nm-31%	32 nm
Architecture	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)	Arrandale (2010−2011)
PassMark	1,508	1,502
Geekbench 6 Single	—	199
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	451

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 1017U uses the BGA1023 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i3-380UM uses BGA1288 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1600 on the Celeron 1017U versus DDR3-800 on the Core i3-380UM — the Celeron 1017U supports 100% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 1017U supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 16 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: Intel FCBGA1023 (Celeron 1017U) and HM55,HM57,QM57 (Core i3-380UM).

Feature	Celeron 1017U	Core i3-380UM
Socket	BGA1023	BGA1288
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600+100%	DDR3-800
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB+300%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Celeron 1017U) / No (Core i3-380UM). Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) (Celeron 1017U) and Intel HD Graphics (Core i3-380UM) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i3-380UM targets Budget. Direct competitor: Core i3-380UM rivals Athlon Silver 3050U.