Celeron 1017U vs Core i7-640LM

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 i7-640LM 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 i7-640LM: 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

❌Lower PassMark (1,508 vs 1,529).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (2 MB vs 4 MB).
❌1948% higher power demand at 512W vs 25W.

Core i7-640LM

2010

Why buy it

✅+100% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 2 MB).
✅Draws 25W instead of 512W, a 487W reduction.

Trade-offs

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

Quick Answers

So, is Core i7-640LM better than Celeron 1017U?

Yes. Core i7-640LM is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 1.4% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core i7-640LM is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.8% 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, Core i7-640LM is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.4% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 100% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 2 MB).

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

Core i7-640LM still makes the most sense overall. Core i7-640LM comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.8% 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). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron 1017U vs Core i7-640LM 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 i7-640LM

The Core i7-640LM is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 7 January 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Arrandale (2010−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.13 GHz, with boost up to 2.93 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1288. Thermal design power (TDP): 25 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-800, DDR3-1066. Passmark benchmark score: 1,529 points. Launch price was $332.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron 1017U packs 2 cores / 2 threads, matching the Core i7-640LM's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 1.6 GHz on the Celeron 1017U versus 2.93 GHz on the Core i7-640LM — a 58.7% clock advantage for the Core i7-640LM (base: 1.6 GHz vs 2.13 GHz). The Celeron 1017U uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Core i7-640LM uses Arrandale (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 1017U scores 1,508 against the Core i7-640LM's 1,529 — a 1.4% lead for the Core i7-640LM. L3 cache: 2 MB on the Celeron 1017U vs 4 MB (total) on the Core i7-640LM.

Feature	Celeron 1017U	Core i7-640LM
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 4
Boost Clock	1.6 GHz	2.93 GHz+83%
Base Clock	1.6 GHz	2.13 GHz+33%
L3 Cache	2 MB	4 MB (total)+100%
L2 Cache	512 kB+100%	256 kB (per core)
Process	22 nm-31%	32 nm
Architecture	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)	Arrandale (2010−2011)
PassMark	1,508	1,529+1%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 1017U uses the BGA1023 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i7-640LM uses BGA1288 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1600 on the Celeron 1017U versus 1066 on the Core i7-640LM — the Celeron 1017U supports 50.1% 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,QS57 (Core i7-640LM).

Feature	Celeron 1017U	Core i7-640LM
Socket	BGA1023	BGA1288
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600+50%	1066
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) / true (Core i7-640LM). Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) (Celeron 1017U) and Intel HD Graphics (Ironlake) (Core i7-640LM) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Core i7-640LM rivals Core 2 Duo SL9400.