Celeron B815 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 B815 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 B815 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 B815

2012

Why buy it

✅+0% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌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

❌Lower PassMark (2,092 vs 2,093).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron B815 better than Core i7-640M?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Core i7-640M is ahead with a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron B815 pulls ahead with 0% better PassMark. Core i7-640M also has the bigger cache pool with 100% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 2 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron B815 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron B815 is the better buy right now. Celeron B815 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $86 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0% better PassMark. The compromise is that Core i7-640M is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (24.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Celeron B815 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2012 vs 2010) 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 B815 vs Core i7-640M Technical Specifications

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

Celeron B815

The Celeron B815 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 January 2012 (13 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: 2,093 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 B815 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, matching the Core i7-640M's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 1.6 GHz on the Celeron B815 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 B815 uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Core i7-640M uses Arrandale (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron B815 scores 2,093 against the Core i7-640M's 2,092 — a 0% lead for the Celeron B815. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron B815 vs 4 MB (total) on the Core i7-640M.

Feature	Celeron B815	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	2,093	2,092

🧠

Memory & Platform

Both processors use the PGA988 socket with PCIe 2.0. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the Celeron B815 versus 1066 on the Core i7-640M — the Celeron B815 supports 25% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron B815 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 B815) and HM55,HM57,QM57 (Core i7-640M).

Feature	Celeron B815	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 B815) vs true (Core i7-640M). Both include integrated graphics — HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (Celeron B815) 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 B815 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron B815 rivals Pentium 967; Core i7-640M rivals Core 2 Duo T9600.