
Celeron E1500

Celeron N3010
Celeron E1500 vs Celeron N3010 Performance Spectrum
About PassMark
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 E1500 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.

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Valorant

Among Us

Apex Legends

ARC Raiders

Baldur's Gate 3

Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
Celeron E1500 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 E1500
2008Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +5.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $54 less on MSRP ($53 MSRP vs $107 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 110.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 14.4 vs 6.9 PassMark/$ ($53 MSRP vs $107 MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌1525% higher power demand at 65W vs 4W.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron N3010 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Celeron N3010
2016Why buy it
- ✅Draws 4W instead of 65W, a 61W reduction.
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics 400, while Celeron E1500 needs a discrete GPU.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron E1500 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (735 vs 765).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 6.9 vs 14.4 PassMark/$ ($107 MSRP vs $53 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is Celeron E1500 better than Celeron N3010?
Which one is better for gaming?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Celeron E1500 vs Celeron N3010 Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Celeron E1500
The Celeron E1500 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 30 November 2008 (17 years ago). It is based on the Allendale (2006−2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 2.2 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: 765 points. Launch price was $63.

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 E1500 and Celeron N3010 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.2 GHz on the Celeron E1500 versus 2.24 GHz on the Celeron N3010 — a 1.8% clock advantage for the Celeron N3010 (base: 2.2 GHz vs 1.04 GHz). The Celeron E1500 uses the Allendale (2006−2009) architecture (65 nm), while the Celeron N3010 uses Airmont (2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron E1500 scores 765 against the Celeron N3010's 735 — a 4% lead for the Celeron E1500. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.
| Feature | Celeron E1500 | Celeron N3010 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 2.2 GHz | 2.24 GHz+2% |
| Base Clock | 2.2 GHz+112% | 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 | 765+4% | 735 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 285 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 515 | — |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron E1500 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 E1500 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 E1500) vs 4 (Celeron N3010) — the Celeron N3010 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: G31,P35,G41 (Celeron E1500) and Braswell (Celeron N3010).
| Feature | Celeron E1500 | 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 E1500) vs true (Celeron N3010). The Celeron N3010 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics 400), while the Celeron E1500 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron E1500 targets Budget, Celeron N3010 targets Budget Mobile. Direct competitor: Celeron E1500 rivals Pentium E2200.
| Feature | Celeron E1500 | 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 E1500 was priced at $53, while the Celeron N3010 came in at $107. On launch pricing ($53 vs $107), Celeron E1500 was $54 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron E1500 delivers 14.4 pts/$ vs 6.9 pts/$ for the Celeron N3010 — making the Celeron E1500 the 71% better value option.
| Feature | Celeron E1500 | Celeron N3010 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $53-50% | $107 |
| Performance per Dollar | 14.4+109% | 6.9 |
| Release Date | 2008 | 2016 |
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.
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.














