Celeron Dual-Core T3100 vs Celeron N3150

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 Dual-Core T3100 vs Celeron N3150 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 Dual-Core T3100 vs Celeron N3150: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron Dual-Core T3100

2009

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 6W, a 5W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,174 vs 1,177).
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron N3150 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Celeron N3150

2015

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Braswell), while Celeron Dual-Core T3100 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌500% higher power demand at 6W vs 1W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N3150 better than Celeron Dual-Core T3100?

Yes. Celeron N3150 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.3% 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 N3150 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.2% 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 N3150 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Celeron N3150 still makes the most sense overall. Celeron N3150 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Celeron N3150 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 vs 2009) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron Dual-Core T3100 vs Celeron N3150 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron Dual-Core T3100

The Celeron Dual-Core T3100 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.9 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,174 points. Launch price was $69.

Celeron N3150

The Celeron N3150 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 April 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Braswell (2015−2016) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.08 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,177 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron Dual-Core T3100 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Celeron N3150 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Celeron N3150 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1.9 GHz on the Celeron Dual-Core T3100 versus 2.08 GHz on the Celeron N3150 — a 9% clock advantage for the Celeron N3150. The Celeron Dual-Core T3100 uses the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture (45 nm), while the Celeron N3150 uses Braswell (2015−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron Dual-Core T3100 scores 1,174 against the Celeron N3150's 1,177 — a 0.3% lead for the Celeron N3150.

Feature	Celeron Dual-Core T3100	Celeron N3150
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	1.9 GHz	2.08 GHz+9%
Base Clock	—	1.6 GHz
L3 Cache	—	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB	2 MB+100%
Process	45 nm	14 nm-69%
Architecture	Penryn (2008−2011)	Braswell (2015−2016)
PassMark	1,174	1,177

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron Dual-Core T3100 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron N3150 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-800 on the Celeron Dual-Core T3100 versus 1600 on the Celeron N3150 — the Celeron N3150 supports 100% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 8 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Celeron Dual-Core T3100) vs 4 (Celeron N3150) — the Celeron N3150 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: GL40,GM45,GS45 (Celeron Dual-Core T3100) and FCBGA1170 (Celeron N3150).

Feature	Celeron Dual-Core T3100	Celeron N3150
Socket	PGA478	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 3.0+173%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-800	1600+100%
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: No (Celeron Dual-Core T3100) vs true (Celeron N3150). The Celeron N3150 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Braswell)), while the Celeron Dual-Core T3100 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron Dual-Core T3100 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron Dual-Core T3100 rivals Pentium T4200; Celeron N3150 rivals AMD E2-7110.