Celeron 5305U vs Core i3-390M

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 5305U vs Core i3-390M 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 5305U vs Core i3-390M: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 5305U

2020

Why buy it

✅Draws 15W instead of 512W, a 497W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (2 MB vs 3 MB).

Core i3-390M

2011

Why buy it

✅+50% larger total L3 cache (3 MB vs 2 MB).
✅33.3% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 12) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,292 vs 1,307).
❌3313.3% higher power demand at 512W vs 15W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 5305U better than Core i3-390M?

Yes. Celeron 5305U is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 2.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 1.2% 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 5305U is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 2.6% 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 5305U is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.2% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron 5305U still makes the most sense overall. Celeron 5305U comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 2.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Celeron 5305U makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2020 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 5305U vs Core i3-390M Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 5305U

The Celeron 5305U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Comet Lake-U (2019−2020) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.3 GHz, with boost up to 2.3 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1528. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2400, LPDDR3-2133. Passmark benchmark score: 1,307 points. Launch price was $69.

Core i3-390M

The Core i3-390M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 9 January 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Arrandale (2010−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.66 GHz, with boost up to 0.67 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: 1,292 points. Launch price was $39.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron 5305U packs 2 cores / 2 threads, matching the Core i3-390M's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 2.3 GHz on the Celeron 5305U versus 0.67 GHz on the Core i3-390M — a 109.8% clock advantage for the Celeron 5305U (base: 2.3 GHz vs 2.66 GHz). The Celeron 5305U uses the Comet Lake-U (2019−2020) architecture (14 nm), while the Core i3-390M uses Arrandale (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 5305U scores 1,307 against the Core i3-390M's 1,292 — a 1.2% lead for the Celeron 5305U. L3 cache: 2 MB on the Celeron 5305U vs 3 MB (total) on the Core i3-390M.

Feature	Celeron 5305U	Core i3-390M
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 4
Boost Clock	2.3 GHz+243%	0.67 GHz
Base Clock	2.3 GHz	2.66 GHz+16%
L3 Cache	2 MB	3 MB (total)+50%
L2 Cache	—	256K (per core)
Process	14 nm-56%	32 nm
Architecture	Comet Lake-U (2019−2020)	Arrandale (2010−2011)
PassMark	1,307+1%	1,292
Geekbench 6 Single	480	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	865	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 5305U uses the FCBGA1528 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i3-390M uses PGA988 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2400 on the Celeron 5305U versus DDR3-1066 on the Core i3-390M — the Celeron 5305U supports 125.1% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 5305U supports up to 64 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 700% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 12 (Celeron 5305U) vs 16 (Core i3-390M) — the Core i3-390M offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	Celeron 5305U	Core i3-390M
Socket	FCBGA1528	PGA988
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2400+125%	DDR3-1066
Max RAM Capacity	64 GB+700%	8 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 5305U) vs VT-x (Core i3-390M). Both include integrated graphics — UHD Graphics (Comet Lake) (Celeron 5305U) and HD Graphics (Core i3-390M) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 5305U targets Budget, Core i3-390M targets Mobile. Direct competitor: Celeron 5305U rivals Pentium Gold 6405U.