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 B800 vs Core i3-3130M 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 B800 vs Core i3-3130M: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron B800

2011

Why buy it

✅+0.2% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $145 less on MSRP ($80 MSRP vs $225 MSRP).
✅Delivers 181.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 23.9 vs 8.5 PassMark/$ ($80 MSRP vs $225 MSRP).
✅Draws 35W instead of 512W, a 477W reduction.

Trade-offs

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

Core i3-3130M

2013

Why buy it

✅+50% larger total L3 cache (3 MB vs 2 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,906 vs 1,910).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 8.5 vs 23.9 PassMark/$ ($225 MSRP vs $80 MSRP).
❌1362.9% higher power demand at 512W vs 35W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron B800 better than Core i3-3130M?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Core i3-3130M is ahead with a 0.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron B800 pulls ahead with 0.2% better PassMark. Core i3-3130M 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 B800 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 B800 is the better buy right now. Celeron B800 comes in $145 cheaper on MSRP at $80 MSRP versus $225 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.2% better PassMark. The compromise is that Core i3-3130M is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 0.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 181.8% better value on MSRP (23.9 vs 8.5 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Core i3-3130M makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2011) and 50% larger total L3 cache (3 MB vs 2 MB). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron B800 vs Core i3-3130M Technical Specifications

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

Celeron B800

The Celeron B800 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 19 June 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.5 GHz, with boost up to 1.5 GHz. L3 cache: 2 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: 1,910 points. Launch price was $80.

Core i3-3130M

The Core i3-3130M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 January 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.6 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,906 points. Launch price was $225.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron B800 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, matching the Core i3-3130M's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 1.5 GHz on the Celeron B800 versus 2.6 GHz on the Core i3-3130M — a 53.7% clock advantage for the Core i3-3130M (base: 1.5 GHz vs 2.6 GHz). The Celeron B800 uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Core i3-3130M uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron B800 scores 1,910 against the Core i3-3130M's 1,906 — a 0.2% lead for the Celeron B800. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron B800 vs 3 MB (total) on the Core i3-3130M.

Feature	Celeron B800	Core i3-3130M
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 4
Boost Clock	1.5 GHz	2.6 GHz+73%
Base Clock	1.5 GHz	2.6 GHz+73%
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	3 MB (total)+50%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	256K (per core)
Process	32 nm	22 nm-31%
Architecture	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
PassMark	1,910	1,906

🧠

Memory & Platform

Both processors use the PGA988 socket with PCIe 2.0. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the Celeron B800 versus 1600 on the Core i3-3130M — the Core i3-3130M supports 20% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core i3-3130M supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 16 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 16 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: HM65,HM67,QM67,QM77 (Celeron B800) and HM75,HM76,HM77,QM77,QS77 (Core i3-3130M).

Feature	Celeron B800	Core i3-3130M
Socket	PGA988	PGA988
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333	1600+20%
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	32 GB+100%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x (Celeron B800) vs true (Core i3-3130M). Both include integrated graphics — HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (Celeron B800) and Intel HD Graphics 4000 (Core i3-3130M) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron B800 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron B800 rivals Pentium 967; Core i3-3130M rivals AMD A8-4500M.

Feature	Celeron B800	Core i3-3130M
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)	Intel HD Graphics 4000
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x	true
Target Use	Budget	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron B800 was priced at $80, while the Core i3-3130M came in at $225. On launch pricing ($80 vs $225), Celeron B800 was $145 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron B800 delivers 23.9 pts/$ vs 8.5 pts/$ for the Core i3-3130M — making the Celeron B800 the 95.2% better value option.

Feature	Celeron B800	Core i3-3130M
MSRP	$80-64%	$225
Performance per Dollar	23.9+181%	8.5
Release Date	2011	2013

Search Celeron B800 on Amazon

Search Core i3-3130M on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.