Celeron 3755U vs Celeron Dual-Core T3100

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 3755U vs Celeron Dual-Core T3100 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 3755U vs Celeron Dual-Core T3100: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 3755U

2015

Why buy it

✅+0.7% higher PassMark.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (12 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Broadwell), while Celeron Dual-Core T3100 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌1400% higher power demand at 15W vs 1W.

Celeron Dual-Core T3100

2009

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 15W, a 14W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,174 vs 1,182).
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 3755U can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 3755U better than Celeron Dual-Core T3100?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron Dual-Core T3100 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 3755U 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 3755U 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 3755U still makes the most sense overall. Celeron 3755U 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 3755U makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 vs 2009) and 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 3755U vs Celeron Dual-Core T3100 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 3755U

The Celeron 3755U 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 1.7 GHz, with boost up to 1.7 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: 1,182 points. Launch price was $107.

Celeron Dual-Core T3100

The Celeron Dual-Core T3100 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.9 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,174 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 3755U and Celeron Dual-Core T3100 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.7 GHz on the Celeron 3755U versus 1.9 GHz on the Celeron Dual-Core T3100 — a 11.1% clock advantage for the Celeron Dual-Core T3100. The Celeron 3755U uses the Broadwell-U (2015) architecture (14 nm), while the Celeron Dual-Core T3100 uses Penryn (2008−2011) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 3755U scores 1,182 against the Celeron Dual-Core T3100's 1,174 — a 0.7% lead for the Celeron 3755U.

Feature	Celeron 3755U	Celeron Dual-Core T3100
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.7 GHz	1.9 GHz+12%
Base Clock	1.7 GHz	—
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	—
L2 Cache	256K (per core)+25500%	1 MB
Process	14 nm-69%	45 nm
Architecture	Broadwell-U (2015)	Penryn (2008−2011)
PassMark	1,182	1,174
Geekbench 6 Multi	625	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 3755U uses the FCBGA1168 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron Dual-Core T3100 uses PGA478 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3L-1600 on the Celeron 3755U versus DDR3-800 on the Celeron Dual-Core T3100 — the Celeron 3755U supports 100% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 3755U 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 3755U) vs 0 (Celeron Dual-Core T3100) — the Celeron 3755U offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Wildcat Point-LP (Celeron 3755U) and GL40,GM45,GS45 (Celeron Dual-Core T3100).

Feature	Celeron 3755U	Celeron Dual-Core T3100
Socket	FCBGA1168	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+173%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1600+100%	DDR3-800
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+100%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	12	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Celeron 3755U) vs No (Celeron Dual-Core T3100). The Celeron 3755U includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Broadwell)), while the Celeron Dual-Core T3100 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 3755U targets Budget, Celeron Dual-Core T3100 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 3755U rivals Pentium 3825U; Celeron Dual-Core T3100 rivals Pentium T4200.