Celeron 3755U vs Celeron N2830

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 N2830 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 N2830: 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

✅200% more PCIe lanes (12 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,182 vs 1,185).
❌114.3% higher power demand at 15W vs 7W.

Celeron N2830

2014

Why buy it

✅Draws 7W instead of 15W, a 8W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N2830 better than Celeron 3755U?

Yes. Celeron N2830 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.7% average FPS lead across 50 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, Celeron N2830 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.7% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron N2830 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron N2830 still makes the most sense overall. Celeron N2830 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 3755U 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 3755U vs Celeron N2830 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 N2830

The Celeron N2830 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 23 February 2014 (11 years ago). It is based on the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.16 GHz, with boost up to 2.41 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: 1,185 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 3755U and Celeron N2830 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.7 GHz on the Celeron 3755U versus 2.41 GHz on the Celeron N2830 — a 34.5% clock advantage for the Celeron N2830 (base: 1.7 GHz vs 2.16 GHz). The Celeron 3755U uses the Broadwell-U (2015) architecture (14 nm), while the Celeron N2830 uses Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 3755U scores 1,182 against the Celeron N2830's 1,185 — a 0.3% lead for the Celeron N2830. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 3755U vs 0 kB on the Celeron N2830.

Feature	Celeron 3755U	Celeron N2830
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.7 GHz	2.41 GHz+42%
Base Clock	1.7 GHz	2.16 GHz+27%
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	1,182	1,185
Geekbench 6 Multi	625	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 3755U uses the FCBGA1168 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron N2830 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3L-1600 on the Celeron 3755U versus 1333 on the Celeron N2830 — the Celeron 3755U supports 20% 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 4 (Celeron N2830) — the Celeron 3755U offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Wildcat Point-LP (Celeron 3755U) and FCBGA1170 (Celeron N2830).

Feature	Celeron 3755U	Celeron N2830
Socket	FCBGA1168	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1600+20%	1333
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 3755U) vs true (Celeron N2830). Both include integrated graphics — HD Graphics (Broadwell) (Celeron 3755U) and Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Celeron N2830) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 3755U targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 3755U rivals Pentium 3825U; Celeron N2830 rivals AMD A6-6310.

Feature	Celeron 3755U	Celeron N2830
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	HD Graphics (Broadwell)	Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	true
Target Use	Budget	—