Celeron 1020M vs Core i7-660UM

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 1020M 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.

Celeron 1020M 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.

Celeron 1020M

2013

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,275 vs 1,279).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (2 MB vs 4 MB).
❌2744.4% higher power demand at 512W vs 18W.

Core i7-660UM

2010

Why buy it

✅+100% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 2 MB).
✅Draws 18W instead of 512W, a 494W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $317 MSRP, while Celeron 1020M mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i7-660UM better than Celeron 1020M?

Yes. Core i7-660UM is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.6% average FPS lead across 45 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.3% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core i7-660UM is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.6% more average FPS across 45 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i7-660UM is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.3% 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 i7-660UM is the better buy right now. Core i7-660UM comes in at an unclear MSRP at $317 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.6% average FPS lead across 45 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (4.0 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Celeron 1020M 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 1020M vs Core i7-660UM Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 1020M

The Celeron 1020M 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 2.1 GHz, with boost up to 2.1 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: 1,275 points. Launch price was $86.

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 Celeron 1020M packs 2 cores / 2 threads, matching the Core i7-660UM's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 2.1 GHz on the Celeron 1020M versus 2.4 GHz on the Core i7-660UM — a 13.3% clock advantage for the Core i7-660UM (base: 2.1 GHz vs 1.33 GHz). The Celeron 1020M uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Core i7-660UM uses Arrandale (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 1020M scores 1,275 against the Core i7-660UM's 1,279 — a 0.3% lead for the Core i7-660UM. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 1020M vs 4 MB (total) on the Core i7-660UM.

Feature	Celeron 1020M	Core i7-660UM
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 4
Boost Clock	2.1 GHz	2.4 GHz+14%
Base Clock	2.1 GHz+58%	1.33 GHz
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	4 MB (total)+100%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	256 kB (per core)
Process	22 nm-31%	32 nm
Architecture	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)	Arrandale (2010−2011)
PassMark	1,275	1,279
Geekbench 6 Single	—	250
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	600

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 1020M uses the PGA988 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i7-660UM uses BGA1288 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1600 on the Celeron 1020M versus DDR3-1066 on the Core i7-660UM — the Celeron 1020M supports 50.1% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 1020M 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: HM77,HM76,HM75 (Celeron 1020M) and PM55,HM55,QM57,HM57 (Core i7-660UM).

Feature	Celeron 1020M	Core i7-660UM
Socket	PGA988	BGA1288
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600+50%	DDR3-1066
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB+300%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x (Celeron 1020M) vs VT-x, VT-d (Core i7-660UM). Both include integrated graphics — HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) (Celeron 1020M) and HD Graphics (Core i7-660UM) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 1020M targets Budget, Core i7-660UM targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 1020M rivals Pentium 2020M.