Celeron 3755U vs Celeron N3150

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 N3150 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 N3150: 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

✅+0.4% higher PassMark.
✅200% more PCIe lanes (12 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌150% higher power demand at 15W vs 6W.

Celeron N3150

2015

Why buy it

✅Draws 6W instead of 15W, a 9W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,177 vs 1,182).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N3150 better than Celeron 3755U?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron N3150 is ahead with a 1.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 3755U pulls ahead with 0.4% 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 0.4% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron N3150 still makes the most sense overall. Celeron N3150 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Celeron N3150 is the safer long-term CPU choice because it gives you more room to grow and a better platform outlook.

Celeron 3755U vs Celeron N3150 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 N3150

The Celeron N3150 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 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.08 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,177 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron 3755U packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Celeron N3150 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Celeron N3150 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1.7 GHz on the Celeron 3755U versus 2.08 GHz on the Celeron N3150 — a 20.1% clock advantage for the Celeron N3150 (base: 1.7 GHz vs 1.6 GHz). The Celeron 3755U uses the Broadwell-U (2015) architecture (14 nm), while the Celeron N3150 uses Braswell (2015−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 3755U scores 1,182 against the Celeron N3150's 1,177 — a 0.4% lead for the Celeron 3755U. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 3755U vs 0 kB on the Celeron N3150.

Feature	Celeron 3755U	Celeron N3150
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	1.7 GHz	2.08 GHz+22%
Base Clock	1.7 GHz+6%	1.6 GHz
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	0 kB
L2 Cache	256K (per core)+12700%	2 MB
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Broadwell-U (2015)	Braswell (2015−2016)
PassMark	1,182	1,177
Geekbench 6 Multi	625	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 3755U uses the FCBGA1168 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron N3150 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3L-1600 memory speed. 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 N3150) — the Celeron 3755U offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Wildcat Point-LP (Celeron 3755U) and FCBGA1170 (Celeron N3150).

Feature	Celeron 3755U	Celeron N3150
Socket	FCBGA1168	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1600	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 3755U) vs true (Celeron N3150). Both include integrated graphics — HD Graphics (Broadwell) (Celeron 3755U) and Intel HD Graphics (Braswell) (Celeron N3150) — 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 N3150 rivals AMD E2-7110.

Feature	Celeron 3755U	Celeron N3150
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	true
Target Use	Budget	—