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 i7-620UM 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 i7-620UM: 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

✅Costs $235 less on MSRP ($43 MSRP vs $278 MSRP).
✅Delivers 545.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 25.3 vs 3.9 PassMark/$ ($43 MSRP vs $278 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (340 vs 350).
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (610 vs 700).
❌261.1% higher power demand at 65W vs 18W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-620UM can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core i7-620UM

2010

Why buy it

✅+2.9% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
✅Draws 18W instead of 65W, a 47W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Ironlake), while Celeron E3200 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 3.9 vs 25.3 PassMark/$ ($278 MSRP vs $43 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is Core i7-620UM better than Celeron E3200?

Yes. Core i7-620UM is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 2.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 14.8% better Geekbench multi-core, 0.1% higher 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, Core i7-620UM is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 2.2% 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, Core i7-620UM is the stronger fit. You are getting 14.8% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

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

Core i7-620UM is still the much better call for a fresh build. Core i7-620UM comes in 546.5% more expensive on MSRP at $278 MSRP versus $43 MSRP, and it still gives you a 2.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron E3200 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2009 platform. Even with 545.9% better value on paper (25.3 vs 3.9 PassMark/$), 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?

Core i7-620UM 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 i7-620UM 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 i7-620UM

The Core i7-620UM 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 1.06 GHz, with boost up to 2.13 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1288. Thermal design power (TDP): 18 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-800. Passmark benchmark score: 1,091 points. Launch price was $278.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron E3200 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, matching the Core i7-620UM's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the Celeron E3200 versus 2.13 GHz on the Core i7-620UM — a 11.9% clock advantage for the Celeron E3200 (base: 2.4 GHz vs 1.06 GHz). The Celeron E3200 uses the Wolfdale (2008−2010) architecture (45 nm), while the Core i7-620UM uses Arrandale (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron E3200 scores 1,090 against the Core i7-620UM's 1,091 — a 0.1% lead for the Core i7-620UM. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 340 vs 350, a 2.9% lead for the Core i7-620UM that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 610 vs 700 (13.7% advantage for the Core i7-620UM). L3 cache: 0 kB on the Celeron E3200 vs 4 MB (total) on the Core i7-620UM.

Feature	Celeron E3200	Core i7-620UM
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 4
Boost Clock	2.4 GHz+13%	2.13 GHz
Base Clock	2.4 GHz+126%	1.06 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	4 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB (total)+300%	256 kB (per core)
Process	45 nm	32 nm-29%
Architecture	Wolfdale (2008−2010)	Arrandale (2010−2011)
PassMark	1,090	1,091
Geekbench 6 Single	340	350+3%
Geekbench 6 Multi	610	700+15%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron E3200 uses the LGA775 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Core i7-620UM uses BGA1288 (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 i7-620UM — the Core i7-620UM 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 i7-620UM) — the Core i7-620UM offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: G31,G41,P45 (Celeron E3200) and HM55,QM57 (Core i7-620UM).

Feature	Celeron E3200	Core i7-620UM
Socket	LGA775	BGA1288
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. Both support VT-x virtualization. The Core i7-620UM includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Ironlake)), while the Celeron E3200 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron E3200 targets Budget, Core i7-620UM targets Ultra-Portable Laptop. Direct competitor: Celeron E3200 rivals Pentium E5200; Core i7-620UM rivals Core 2 Duo SU9600.

Feature	Celeron E3200	Core i7-620UM
Integrated GPU	No	Yes
IGPU Model	—	Intel HD Graphics (Ironlake)
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x	VT-x
Target Use	Budget	Ultra-Portable Laptop

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron E3200 was priced at $43, while the Core i7-620UM came in at $278. On launch pricing ($43 vs $278), Celeron E3200 was $235 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron E3200 delivers 25.3 pts/$ vs 3.9 pts/$ for the Core i7-620UM — making the Celeron E3200 the 146.4% better value option.

Feature	Celeron E3200	Core i7-620UM
MSRP	$43-85%	$278
Performance per Dollar	25.3+549%	3.9
Release Date	2009	2010

Search Celeron E3200 on Amazon

Search Core i7-620UM 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.