Celeron 3765U vs Core i3-2330M

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 i3-2330M 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 i3-2330M: 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

✅+0.3% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (2 MB vs 3 MB).
❌1362.9% higher power demand at 512W vs 35W.

Core i3-2330M

2011

Why buy it

✅+50% larger total L3 cache (3 MB vs 2 MB).
✅Draws 35W instead of 512W, a 477W reduction.
✅33.3% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 12) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,248 vs 1,252).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 3765U better than Core i3-2330M?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Core i3-2330M is ahead with a 0.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 3765U pulls ahead with 0.3% better PassMark. Core i3-2330M also has the bigger cache pool with 50% larger total L3 cache (3 MB vs 2 MB).

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 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron 3765U still makes the most sense overall. Celeron 3765U comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.3% better PassMark.

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 2011) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron 3765U vs Core i3-2330M 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 i3-2330M

The Core i3-2330M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 June 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 2.2 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,248 points. Launch price was $225.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron 3765U packs 2 cores / 2 threads, matching the Core i3-2330M's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 1.9 GHz on the Celeron 3765U versus 2.2 GHz on the Core i3-2330M — a 14.6% clock advantage for the Core i3-2330M (base: 1.9 GHz vs 2.2 GHz). The Celeron 3765U uses the Broadwell (2015−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the Core i3-2330M uses Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 3765U scores 1,252 against the Core i3-2330M's 1,248 — a 0.3% lead for the Celeron 3765U. L3 cache: 2 MB on the Celeron 3765U vs 3 MB (total) on the Core i3-2330M.

Feature	Celeron 3765U	Core i3-2330M
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 4
Boost Clock	1.9 GHz	2.2 GHz+16%
Base Clock	1.9 GHz	2.2 GHz+16%
L3 Cache	2 MB	3 MB (total)+50%
L2 Cache	512 kB+100%	256K (per core)
Process	14 nm-56%	32 nm
Architecture	Broadwell (2015−2019)	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
PassMark	1,252	1,248

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 3765U uses the FCBGA1168 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i3-2330M uses PGA988 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3L-1600 on the Celeron 3765U versus 1333 on the Core i3-2330M — the Celeron 3765U supports 20% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 16 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 12 (Celeron 3765U) vs 16 (Core i3-2330M) — the Core i3-2330M offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Wildcat Point-LP (Celeron 3765U) and HM65,HM67,QM67,QS67 (Core i3-2330M).

Feature	Celeron 3765U	Core i3-2330M
Socket	FCBGA1168	PGA988
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1600+20%	1333
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	16 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	12	16+33%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Celeron 3765U) vs true (Core i3-2330M). Both include integrated graphics — HD Graphics (Broadwell) (Celeron 3765U) and Intel HD Graphics 3000 (Core i3-2330M) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 3765U targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 3765U rivals Pentium 3825U; Core i3-2330M rivals AMD A6-3400M.