Celeron 1037U vs Celeron N2920

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 1037U vs Celeron N2920 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 1037U vs Celeron N2920: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 1037U

2013

Why buy it

✅+0.4% higher PassMark.
✅300% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌7214.3% higher power demand at 512W vs 7W.

Celeron N2920

2013

Why buy it

✅Draws 7W instead of 512W, a 505W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,030 vs 1,034).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N2920 better than Celeron 1037U?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron N2920 is ahead with a 1.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 1037U pulls ahead with 0.4% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 1037U 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 N2920 still makes the most sense overall. Celeron N2920 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Celeron N2920 is the safer long-term CPU choice because it gives you more room to grow and a better platform outlook.

Celeron 1037U vs Celeron N2920 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 1037U

The Celeron 1037U 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: BGA1023. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,034 points. Launch price was $86.

Celeron N2920

The Celeron N2920 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 December 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.86 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 7.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,030 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron 1037U packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Celeron N2920 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Celeron N2920 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1.8 GHz on the Celeron 1037U versus 2 GHz on the Celeron N2920 — a 10.5% clock advantage for the Celeron N2920 (base: 1.8 GHz vs 1.86 GHz). The Celeron 1037U uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Celeron N2920 uses Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 1037U scores 1,034 against the Celeron N2920's 1,030 — a 0.4% lead for the Celeron 1037U. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 1037U vs 0 kB on the Celeron N2920.

Feature	Celeron 1037U	Celeron N2920
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	1.8 GHz	2 GHz+11%
Base Clock	1.8 GHz	1.86 GHz+3%
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	0 kB
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	512K (per core)+100%
Process	22 nm	22 nm
Architecture	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)	Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)
PassMark	1,034	1,030
Geekbench 6 Single	324	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	626	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 1037U uses the BGA1023 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron N2920 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1600 on the Celeron 1037U versus 1066 on the Celeron N2920 — the Celeron 1037U supports 50.1% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 1037U 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. PCIe lanes: 16 (Celeron 1037U) vs 4 (Celeron N2920) — the Celeron 1037U offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: HM70,NM70,HM76 (Celeron 1037U) and FCBGA1170 (Celeron N2920).

Feature	Celeron 1037U	Celeron N2920
Socket	BGA1023	FCBGA1170
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+300%	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x, EPT (Celeron 1037U) vs true (Celeron N2920). Both include integrated graphics — HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) (Celeron 1037U) and Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Celeron N2920) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 1037U targets Budget Mobile. Direct competitor: Celeron 1037U rivals AMD E1-2500; Celeron N2920 rivals AMD A4-6210.

Feature	Celeron 1037U	Celeron N2920
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)	Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, EPT	true
Target Use	Budget Mobile	—