Celeron 3205U vs Celeron N2930

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 3205U vs Celeron N2930 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 3205U vs Celeron N2930: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 3205U

2015

Why buy it

✅+68.8% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
✅300% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (483 vs 502).
❌7214.3% higher power demand at 512W vs 7W.

Celeron N2930

2014

Why buy it

✅+3.9% higher Geekbench multi-core.
✅Draws 7W instead of 512W, a 505W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (170 vs 287).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N2930 better than Celeron 3205U?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron 3205U is ahead with a 1.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron N2930 pulls ahead with 3.9% better Geekbench multi-core.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron N2930 is the stronger fit. You are getting 3.9% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Celeron N2930 still makes the most sense overall. Celeron N2930 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 3.9% better Geekbench multi-core.

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

Celeron 3205U makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 vs 2014). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron 3205U vs Celeron N2930 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 3205U

The Celeron 3205U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 March 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell-U (2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.5 GHz, with boost up to 1.5 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1168. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,025 points. Launch price was $107.

Celeron N2930

The Celeron N2930 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.83 GHz, with boost up to 2.16 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: 1,032 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron 3205U packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Celeron N2930 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Celeron N2930 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1.5 GHz on the Celeron 3205U versus 2.16 GHz on the Celeron N2930 — a 36.1% clock advantage for the Celeron N2930 (base: 1.5 GHz vs 1.83 GHz). The Celeron 3205U uses the Broadwell-U (2015) architecture (14 nm), while the Celeron N2930 uses Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 3205U scores 1,025 against the Celeron N2930's 1,032 — a 0.7% lead for the Celeron N2930. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 287 vs 170, a 51.2% lead for the Celeron 3205U that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 483 vs 502 (3.9% advantage for the Celeron N2930). L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 3205U vs 0 kB on the Celeron N2930.

Feature	Celeron 3205U	Celeron N2930
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	1.5 GHz	2.16 GHz+44%
Base Clock	1.5 GHz	1.83 GHz+22%
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	0 kB
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	512K (per core)+100%
Process	14 nm-36%	22 nm
Architecture	Broadwell-U (2015)	Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)
PassMark	1,025	1,032
Geekbench 6 Single	287+69%	170
Geekbench 6 Multi	483	502+4%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 3205U uses the FCBGA1168 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron N2930 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3L-1600 on the Celeron 3205U versus DDR3L-1333 on the Celeron N2930 — the Celeron 3205U supports 20% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 3205U supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Celeron 3205U) vs 4 (Celeron N2930) — the Celeron 3205U offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Wildcat Point-LP (Celeron 3205U) and SoC (Celeron N2930).

Feature	Celeron 3205U	Celeron N2930
Socket	FCBGA1168	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1600+20%	DDR3L-1333
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+100%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16+300%	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization support: VT-x (Celeron 3205U) vs Yes (Celeron N2930). Both include integrated graphics — HD Graphics (Broadwell) (Celeron 3205U) and Intel HD Graphics (Celeron N2930) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 3205U targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 3205U rivals Pentium 2117U.