Celeron 6305 vs Core i7-640M

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 6305 vs Core i7-640M 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 6305 vs Core i7-640M: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 6305

2020

Why buy it

✅Draws 3W instead of 35W, a 33W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,077 vs 2,092).
❌Launch MSRP is still $107 MSRP, while Core i7-640M mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Core i7-640M

2010

Why buy it

✅300% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌1300% higher power demand at 35W vs 2.5W.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i7-640M better than Celeron 6305?

Yes. Core i7-640M is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.7% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core i7-640M is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.3% 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, Core i7-640M is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.7% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

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

Core i7-640M is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Core i7-640M comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $107 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron 6305 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 6305 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2020 vs 2010). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron 6305 vs Core i7-640M Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 6305

The Celeron 6305 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Tiger Lake-U (2020−2021) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.8 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB. L2 cache: 2.5 MB. Built on 10 nm SuperFin process technology. Socket: FCBGA1449. Thermal design power (TDP): 2.5 MB + 4 MB. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 2,077 points. Launch price was $69.

Core i7-640M

The Core i7-640M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Arrandale (2010−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 3.46 GHz. L3 cache: 4 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: 2,092 points. Launch price was $346.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron 6305 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, matching the Core i7-640M's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 1.8 GHz on the Celeron 6305 versus 3.46 GHz on the Core i7-640M — a 63.1% clock advantage for the Core i7-640M. The Celeron 6305 uses the Tiger Lake-U (2020−2021) architecture (10 nm SuperFin), while the Core i7-640M uses Arrandale (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 6305 scores 2,077 against the Core i7-640M's 2,092 — a 0.7% lead for the Core i7-640M. L3 cache: 4 MB on the Celeron 6305 vs 4 MB (total) on the Core i7-640M.

Feature	Celeron 6305	Core i7-640M
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 4
Boost Clock	1.8 GHz	3.46 GHz+92%
Base Clock	—	2.8 GHz
L3 Cache	4 MB	4 MB (total)
L2 Cache	2.5 MB	256K (per core)+10140%
Process	10 nm SuperFin-69%	32 nm
Architecture	Tiger Lake-U (2020−2021)	Arrandale (2010−2011)
PassMark	2,077	2,092
Geekbench 6 Single	744	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	1,236	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 6305 uses the FCBGA1449 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Core i7-640M uses PGA988 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-3200 on the Celeron 6305 versus 1066 on the Core i7-640M — the Celeron 6305 supports 200.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 6305 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: 4 (Celeron 6305) vs 16 (Core i7-640M) — the Core i7-640M offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Tiger Lake-U (Celeron 6305) and HM55,HM57,QM57 (Core i7-640M).

Feature	Celeron 6305	Core i7-640M
Socket	FCBGA1449	PGA988
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0+100%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-3200+200%	1066
Max RAM Capacity	64 GB+700%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	4	16+300%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Celeron 6305) vs true (Core i7-640M). Both include integrated graphics — UHD Graphics for 11th Gen (Celeron 6305) and Intel HD Graphics (Ironlake) (Core i7-640M) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 6305 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 6305 rivals Pentium Gold 7505; Core i7-640M rivals Core 2 Duo T9600.

Feature	Celeron 6305	Core i7-640M
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	UHD Graphics for 11th Gen	Intel HD Graphics (Ironlake)
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	true
Target Use	Budget	—