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 E3200 vs Core i3-350M 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 E3200 vs Core i3-350M: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron E3200

2009

Why buy it

✅+21.4% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
✅Costs $87 less on MSRP ($43 MSRP vs $130 MSRP).
✅Delivers 202.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 25.3 vs 8.4 PassMark/$ ($43 MSRP vs $130 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (610 vs 650).
❌85.7% higher power demand at 65W vs 35W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i3-350M can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core i3-350M

2010

Why buy it

✅+6.6% higher Geekbench multi-core.
✅Draws 35W instead of 65W, a 30W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics, while Celeron E3200 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (280 vs 340).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 8.4 vs 25.3 PassMark/$ ($130 MSRP vs $43 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is Core i3-350M better than Celeron E3200?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron E3200 is ahead with a 1.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Core i3-350M pulls ahead with 6.6% better Geekbench multi-core.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i3-350M is the stronger fit. You are getting 6.6% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

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

Core i3-350M is still the much better call for a fresh build. Core i3-350M comes in 202.3% more expensive on MSRP at $130 MSRP versus $43 MSRP, and it still gives you 6.6% better Geekbench multi-core. Celeron E3200 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2009 platform. Even with 202.9% better value on paper (25.3 vs 8.4 PassMark/$), 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?

Core i3-350M makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2010 vs 2009) and more multi-core headroom with 2 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 E3200 vs Core i3-350M Technical Specifications

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

Celeron E3200

The Celeron E3200 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 30 August 2009 (16 years ago). It is based on the Wolfdale (2008−2010) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB (total). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,090 points. Launch price was $52.

Core i3-350M

The Core i3-350M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 7 January 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Arrandale (2010−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.26 GHz, with boost up to 0.27 GHz. L3 cache: 3 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: 1,088 points. Launch price was $130.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron E3200 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, matching the Core i3-350M's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the Celeron E3200 versus 0.27 GHz on the Core i3-350M — a 159.6% clock advantage for the Celeron E3200 (base: 2.4 GHz vs 2.26 GHz). The Celeron E3200 uses the Wolfdale (2008−2010) architecture (45 nm), while the Core i3-350M uses Arrandale (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron E3200 scores 1,090 against the Core i3-350M's 1,088 — a 0.2% lead for the Celeron E3200. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 340 vs 280, a 19.4% lead for the Celeron E3200 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 610 vs 650 (6.3% advantage for the Core i3-350M). L3 cache: 0 kB on the Celeron E3200 vs 3 MB (total) on the Core i3-350M.

Feature	Celeron E3200	Core i3-350M
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 4
Boost Clock	2.4 GHz+789%	0.27 GHz
Base Clock	2.4 GHz+6%	2.26 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	3 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB (total)	256K (per core)+25500%
Process	45 nm	32 nm-29%
Architecture	Wolfdale (2008−2010)	Arrandale (2010−2011)
PassMark	1,090	1,088
Geekbench 6 Single	340+21%	280
Geekbench 6 Multi	610	650+7%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron E3200 uses the LGA775 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Core i3-350M uses PGA988 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-800 on the Celeron E3200 versus DDR3-1066 on the Core i3-350M — the Core i3-350M supports 33.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron E3200 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. PCIe lanes: 0 (Celeron E3200) vs 16 (Core i3-350M) — the Core i3-350M offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: G31,G41,P45 (Celeron E3200) and HM55,HM57 (Core i3-350M).

Feature	Celeron E3200	Core i3-350M
Socket	LGA775	PGA988
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 2.0+82%
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-800	DDR3-1066+33%
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+100%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x (Celeron E3200) vs VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Core i3-350M). The Core i3-350M includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics), while the Celeron E3200 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron E3200 targets Budget, Core i3-350M targets Entry Laptop. Direct competitor: Celeron E3200 rivals Pentium E5200; Core i3-350M rivals AMD Athlon II P320.

Feature	Celeron E3200	Core i3-350M
Integrated GPU	No	Yes
IGPU Model	—	Intel HD Graphics
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x	VT-x, VT-d, EPT
Target Use	Budget	Entry Laptop

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron E3200 was priced at $43, while the Core i3-350M came in at $130. On launch pricing ($43 vs $130), Celeron E3200 was $87 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron E3200 delivers 25.3 pts/$ vs 8.4 pts/$ for the Core i3-350M — making the Celeron E3200 the 100.7% better value option.

Feature	Celeron E3200	Core i3-350M
MSRP	$43-67%	$130
Performance per Dollar	25.3+201%	8.4
Release Date	2009	2010

Search Celeron E3200 on Amazon

Search Core i3-350M 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.