Celeron 3765U vs Z-60

Celeron 3765U vs Z-60 Performance Spectrum

Celeron 3765U

2 / 2

1,252

+0.2%

1,249

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

About PassMark

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 Z-60 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 Z-60: 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.

Trade-offs

❌10140% higher power demand at 512W vs 5W.

Z-60

2012

Why buy it

✅Draws 5W instead of 512W, a 507W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,249 vs 1,252).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 3765U better than Z-60?

Yes. Celeron 3765U is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.2% 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 1.9% 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 0.2% 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 a 1.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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 2012) 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 3765U vs Z-60 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.

Z-60

The Z-60 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 9 October 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Hondo (2012) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 40 nm process technology. Socket: FT1. Thermal design power (TDP): 5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3 Single-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 1,249 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 3765U and Z-60 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.9 GHz on the Celeron 3765U versus 1 GHz on the Z-60 — a 62.1% clock advantage for the Celeron 3765U. The Celeron 3765U uses the Broadwell (2015−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the Z-60 uses Hondo (2012) (40 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 3765U scores 1,252 against the Z-60's 1,249 — a 0.2% lead for the Celeron 3765U. L3 cache: 2 MB on the Celeron 3765U vs 0 kB on the Z-60.

Feature	Celeron 3765U	Z-60
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.9 GHz+90%	1 GHz
Base Clock	1.9 GHz	—
L3 Cache	2 MB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB	1 MB+100%
Process	14 nm-65%	40 nm
Architecture	Broadwell (2015−2019)	Hondo (2012)
PassMark	1,252	1,249
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	658

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 3765U uses the FCBGA1168 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Z-60 uses FT1 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3L-1600 on the Celeron 3765U versus DDR3-1066 on the Z-60 — the Celeron 3765U supports 50.1% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Celeron 3765U) vs 1 (Z-60).

Feature	Celeron 3765U	Z-60
Socket	FCBGA1168	FT1
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1600+50%	DDR3-1066
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	—
RAM Channels	2+100%	1
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	12	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Celeron 3765U) vs AMD-V (Z-60). Both include integrated graphics — HD Graphics (Broadwell) (Celeron 3765U) and Radeon HD 6250 (Z-60) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 3765U targets Budget, Z-60 targets Tablet. Direct competitor: Celeron 3765U rivals Pentium 3825U; Z-60 rivals Core i3-2310M.