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 E1400 vs Celeron N3010 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 E1400 vs Celeron N3010: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron E1400

2008

Why buy it

✅Costs $54 less on MSRP ($53 MSRP vs $107 MSRP).
✅Delivers 96.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 13.5 vs 6.9 PassMark/$ ($53 MSRP vs $107 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (715 vs 735).
❌1525% higher power demand at 65W vs 4W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron N3010 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Celeron N3010

2016

Why buy it

✅Draws 4W instead of 65W, a 61W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics 400, while Celeron E1400 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 6.9 vs 13.5 PassMark/$ ($107 MSRP vs $53 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N3010 better than Celeron E1400?

Yes. Celeron N3010 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, 2.8% 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 N3010 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, Celeron N3010 is the stronger fit. You are getting 2.8% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron N3010 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Celeron N3010 comes in 101.9% more expensive on MSRP at $107 MSRP versus $53 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron E1400 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2008 platform. Even with 96.4% better value on paper (13.5 vs 6.9 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on LGA775.

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

Celeron N3010 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2016 vs 2008) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron E1400 vs Celeron N3010 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron E1400

The Celeron E1400 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 April 2008 (17 years ago). It is based on the Allendale (2006−2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (total). Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 715 points. Launch price was $57.

Celeron N3010

The Celeron N3010 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 10 January 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Airmont (2016) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.04 GHz, with boost up to 2.24 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 4 Watt. Memory support: DDR3L-1600. Passmark benchmark score: 735 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron E1400 and Celeron N3010 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Celeron E1400 versus 2.24 GHz on the Celeron N3010 — a 11.3% clock advantage for the Celeron N3010 (base: 2 GHz vs 1.04 GHz). The Celeron E1400 uses the Allendale (2006−2009) architecture (65 nm), while the Celeron N3010 uses Airmont (2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron E1400 scores 715 against the Celeron N3010's 735 — a 2.8% lead for the Celeron N3010. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron E1400	Celeron N3010
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2 GHz	2.24 GHz+12%
Base Clock	2 GHz+92%	1.04 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB (total)	1 MB+100%
Process	65 nm	14 nm-78%
Architecture	Allendale (2006−2009)	Airmont (2016)
PassMark	715	735+3%
Geekbench 6 Single	260	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	470	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron E1400 uses the LGA775 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron N3010 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-800 on the Celeron E1400 versus 1600 on the Celeron N3010 — the Celeron N3010 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 E1400) vs 4 (Celeron N3010) — the Celeron N3010 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: G31,P35,G41 (Celeron E1400) and Braswell (Celeron N3010).

Feature	Celeron E1400	Celeron N3010
Socket	LGA775	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 3.0+173%
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-800	1600+100%
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization support: No (Celeron E1400) vs true (Celeron N3010). The Celeron N3010 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics 400), while the Celeron E1400 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron E1400 targets Budget, Celeron N3010 targets Budget Mobile. Direct competitor: Celeron E1400 rivals Pentium E2180.

Feature	Celeron E1400	Celeron N3010
Integrated GPU	No	Yes
IGPU Model	—	Intel HD Graphics 400
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	No	true
Target Use	Budget	Budget Mobile

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron E1400 was priced at $53, while the Celeron N3010 came in at $107. On launch pricing ($53 vs $107), Celeron E1400 was $54 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron E1400 delivers 13.5 pts/$ vs 6.9 pts/$ for the Celeron N3010 — making the Celeron E1400 the 65% better value option.

Feature	Celeron E1400	Celeron N3010
MSRP	$53-50%	$107
Performance per Dollar	13.5+96%	6.9
Release Date	2008	2016

Search Celeron E1400 on Amazon

Search Celeron N3010 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.