Celeron 3215U vs Celeron N3050

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 3215U vs Celeron N3050 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 3215U vs Celeron N3050: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 3215U

2015

Why buy it

✅+53.4% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
✅200% more PCIe lanes (12 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,091 vs 1,099).
❌8433.3% higher power demand at 512W vs 6W.

Celeron N3050

2015

Why buy it

✅+0.7% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 6W instead of 512W, a 506W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (221 vs 339).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N3050 better than Celeron 3215U?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron 3215U 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 N3050 pulls ahead with 0.7% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron N3050 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.7% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron N3050 still makes the most sense overall. Celeron N3050 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.7% better PassMark.

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

Celeron N3050 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron 3215U vs Celeron N3050 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 3215U

The Celeron 3215U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 June 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell (2015−2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.7 GHz, with boost up to 1.7 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1168. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,091 points. Launch price was $107.

Celeron N3050

The Celeron N3050 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 April 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Braswell (2015−2016) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.16 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,099 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 3215U and Celeron N3050 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.7 GHz on the Celeron 3215U versus 2.16 GHz on the Celeron N3050 — a 23.8% clock advantage for the Celeron N3050 (base: 1.7 GHz vs 1.6 GHz). The Celeron 3215U uses the Broadwell (2015−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the Celeron N3050 uses Braswell (2015−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 3215U scores 1,091 against the Celeron N3050's 1,099 — a 0.7% lead for the Celeron N3050. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 339 vs 221, a 42.1% lead for the Celeron 3215U that directly translates to higher frame rates. L3 cache: 2 MB on the Celeron 3215U vs 0 kB on the Celeron N3050.

Feature	Celeron 3215U	Celeron N3050
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.7 GHz	2.16 GHz+27%
Base Clock	1.7 GHz+6%	1.6 GHz
L3 Cache	2 MB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB	1 MB+100%
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Broadwell (2015−2019)	Braswell (2015−2016)
PassMark	1,091	1,099
Geekbench 6 Single	339+53%	221
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	440

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 3215U uses the FCBGA1168 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron N3050 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3L-1600 memory speed. The Celeron 3215U 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: 12 (Celeron 3215U) vs 4 (Celeron N3050) — the Celeron 3215U offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Wildcat Point-LP (Celeron 3215U) and Braswell SoC (Celeron N3050).

Feature	Celeron 3215U	Celeron N3050
Socket	FCBGA1168	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1600	DDR3L-1600
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+100%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	12+200%	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Celeron 3215U) vs VT-x / EPT (Celeron N3050). Both include integrated graphics — HD Graphics (Broadwell) (Celeron 3215U) and Intel HD Graphics (Braswell) (Celeron N3050) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 3215U targets Budget, Celeron N3050 targets Netbook. Direct competitor: Celeron 3215U rivals Pentium 3825U; Celeron N3050 rivals AMD E2-7110.

Feature	Celeron 3215U	Celeron N3050
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	HD Graphics (Broadwell)	Intel HD Graphics (Braswell)
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x / EPT
Target Use	Budget	Netbook