Celeron 3965Y vs Celeron N3160

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 3965Y vs Celeron N3160 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 3965Y vs Celeron N3160: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 3965Y

2017

Why buy it

✅+0.5% higher PassMark.
✅150% more PCIe lanes (10 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌50% higher power demand at 6W vs 4W.

Celeron N3160

2016

Why buy it

✅Draws 4W instead of 6W, a 2W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,195 vs 1,201).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 3965Y better than Celeron N3160?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron N3160 is ahead with a 1.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 3965Y pulls ahead with 0.5% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 3965Y is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.5% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron 3965Y still makes the most sense overall. Celeron 3965Y comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.5% better PassMark.

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

Celeron 3965Y makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2017 vs 2016) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 4/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron 3965Y vs Celeron N3160 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 3965Y

The Celeron 3965Y is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Kaby Lake (2016−2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.5 GHz, with boost up to 1.3 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1515. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,201 points. Launch price was $69.

Celeron N3160

The Celeron N3160 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 15 January 2016 (9 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 2.24 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: 1,195 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron 3965Y packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Celeron N3160 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Celeron N3160 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1.3 GHz on the Celeron 3965Y versus 2.24 GHz on the Celeron N3160 — a 53.1% clock advantage for the Celeron N3160 (base: 1.5 GHz vs 1.6 GHz). The Celeron 3965Y uses the Kaby Lake (2016−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the Celeron N3160 uses Braswell (2015−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 3965Y scores 1,201 against the Celeron N3160's 1,195 — a 0.5% lead for the Celeron 3965Y. L3 cache: 2 MB on the Celeron 3965Y vs 0 kB on the Celeron N3160.

Feature	Celeron 3965Y	Celeron N3160
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	1.3 GHz	2.24 GHz+72%
Base Clock	1.5 GHz	1.6 GHz+7%
L3 Cache	2 MB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB	2 MB+300%
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Kaby Lake (2016−2019)	Braswell (2015−2016)
PassMark	1,201	1,195
Geekbench 6 Single	372	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	708	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 3965Y uses the FCBGA1515 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron N3160 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches LPDDR3-1866 on the Celeron 3965Y versus 1600 on the Celeron N3160 — the Celeron 3965Y supports 16.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 3965Y 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: 10 (Celeron 3965Y) vs 4 (Celeron N3160) — the Celeron 3965Y offers 6 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SoC (Celeron 3965Y) and FCBGA1170 (Celeron N3160).

Feature	Celeron 3965Y	Celeron N3160
Socket	FCBGA1515	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	LPDDR3-1866+17%	1600
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+100%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	10+150%	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Celeron 3965Y) vs true (Celeron N3160). Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics 615 (Celeron 3965Y) and Intel HD Graphics 400 (Celeron N3160) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 3965Y targets Low Power. Direct competitor: Celeron 3965Y rivals Pentium Gold 4415Y; Celeron N3160 rivals AMD E2-9010.