Celeron 3765U vs Core 2 Solo SU3300

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 3765U vs Core 2 Solo SU3300 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 3765U vs Core 2 Solo SU3300: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 3765U

2015

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (12 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Broadwell), while Core 2 Solo SU3300 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌16966.7% higher power demand at 512W vs 3W.

Core 2 Solo SU3300

2008

Why buy it

✅Draws 3W instead of 512W, a 509W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,247 vs 1,252).
❌Launch MSRP is still $262 MSRP, while Celeron 3765U mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 3765U can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 3765U better than Core 2 Solo SU3300?

Yes. Celeron 3765U 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, 0.4% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron 3765U 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 3765U 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 3765U is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Celeron 3765U comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $262 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core 2 Solo SU3300 only looks good on raw value math because it is a cheap legacy laptop chip, not because it is a real desktop gaming recommendation. It simply does not keep up in modern games.

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

Celeron 3765U makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 vs 2008) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 1/1. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron 3765U vs Core 2 Solo SU3300 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 3765U

The Celeron 3765U 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 1.9 GHz, with boost up to 1.9 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: 1,252 points. Launch price was $107.

Core 2 Solo SU3300

The Core 2 Solo SU3300 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 August 2008 (17 years ago). It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.2 GHz. L2 cache: 3 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: BGA956. Thermal design power (TDP): 3 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,247 points. Launch price was $262.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron 3765U packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Core 2 Solo SU3300 offers 1 cores / 1 threads — the Celeron 3765U has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 1.9 GHz on the Celeron 3765U versus 1.2 GHz on the Core 2 Solo SU3300 — a 45.2% clock advantage for the Celeron 3765U. The Celeron 3765U uses the Broadwell (2015−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the Core 2 Solo SU3300 uses Penryn (2008−2011) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 3765U scores 1,252 against the Core 2 Solo SU3300's 1,247 — a 0.4% lead for the Celeron 3765U.

Feature	Celeron 3765U	Core 2 Solo SU3300
Cores / Threads	2 / 2+100%	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1.9 GHz+58%	1.2 GHz
Base Clock	1.9 GHz	—
L3 Cache	2 MB	—
L2 Cache	512 kB	3 MB+500%
Process	14 nm-69%	45 nm
Architecture	Broadwell (2015−2019)	Penryn (2008−2011)
PassMark	1,252	1,247

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 3765U uses the FCBGA1168 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core 2 Solo SU3300 uses BGA956 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3L-1600 on the Celeron 3765U versus DDR2-800 on the Core 2 Solo SU3300 — the Celeron 3765U supports 100% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 3765U supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Celeron 3765U) vs 1 (Core 2 Solo SU3300). PCIe lanes: 12 (Celeron 3765U) vs 0 (Core 2 Solo SU3300) — the Celeron 3765U offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	Celeron 3765U	Core 2 Solo SU3300
Socket	FCBGA1168	BGA956
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+173%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1600+100%	DDR2-800
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+300%	4 GB
RAM Channels	2+100%	1
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	12	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Celeron 3765U) vs VT-x (Core 2 Solo SU3300). The Celeron 3765U includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Broadwell)), while the Core 2 Solo SU3300 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 3765U targets Budget, Core 2 Solo SU3300 targets Mobile. Direct competitor: Celeron 3765U rivals Pentium 3825U.