Celeron B810 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 B810 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 B810 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 B810

2011

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,091 vs 2,092).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (2 MB vs 4 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while Core i7-640M mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Core i7-640M

2010

Why buy it

✅+100% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 2 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i7-640M better than Celeron B810?

Yes. Core i7-640M is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0% 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 0.1% 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% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 100% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 2 MB).

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

Core i7-640M is still the much better call for a fresh build. Core i7-640M comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron B810 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2011 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (24.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on PGA988.

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

Celeron B810 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2010). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron B810 vs Core i7-640M Technical Specifications

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

Celeron B810

The Celeron B810 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 March 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 1.6 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: 2,091 points. Launch price was $86.

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 B810 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, matching the Core i7-640M's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 1.6 GHz on the Celeron B810 versus 3.46 GHz on the Core i7-640M — a 73.5% clock advantage for the Core i7-640M (base: 1.6 GHz vs 2.8 GHz). The Celeron B810 uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Core i7-640M uses Arrandale (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron B810 scores 2,091 against the Core i7-640M's 2,092 — a 0% lead for the Core i7-640M. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron B810 vs 4 MB (total) on the Core i7-640M.

Feature	Celeron B810	Core i7-640M
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 4
Boost Clock	1.6 GHz	3.46 GHz+116%
Base Clock	1.6 GHz	2.8 GHz+75%
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	4 MB (total)+100%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	256K (per core)
Process	32 nm	32 nm
Architecture	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)	Arrandale (2010−2011)
PassMark	2,091	2,092

🧠

Memory & Platform

Both processors use the PGA988 socket with PCIe 2.0. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the Celeron B810 versus 1066 on the Core i7-640M — the Celeron B810 supports 25% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron B810 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. Both provide 16 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: HM65,HM67,QM67,QM77 (Celeron B810) and HM55,HM57,QM57 (Core i7-640M).

Feature	Celeron B810	Core i7-640M
Socket	PGA988	PGA988
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333+25%	1066
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+100%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x (Celeron B810) vs true (Core i7-640M). Both include integrated graphics — HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (Celeron B810) 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 B810 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron B810 rivals Pentium 967; Core i7-640M rivals Core 2 Duo T9600.