Celeron G1620T vs Core i7-640LM

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 G1620T vs Core i7-640LM 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 G1620T vs Core i7-640LM: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron G1620T

2013

Why buy it

✅+0.2% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (2 MB vs 4 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $42 MSRP, while Core i7-640LM mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌40% higher power demand at 35W vs 25W.

Core i7-640LM

2010

Why buy it

✅+100% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 2 MB).
✅Draws 25W instead of 35W, a 10W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,529 vs 1,532).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron G1620T better than Core i7-640LM?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Core i7-640LM is ahead with a 1.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron G1620T pulls ahead with 0.2% better PassMark. Core i7-640LM also has the bigger cache pool with 100% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 2 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron G1620T is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron G1620T is the better buy right now. Celeron G1620T comes in at an unclear MSRP at $42 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.2% better PassMark. The compromise is that Core i7-640LM is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 1.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (36.5 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Celeron G1620T makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2010) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron G1620T vs Core i7-640LM Technical Specifications

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

Celeron G1620T

The Celeron G1620T is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1155. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,532 points. Launch price was $42.

Core i7-640LM

The Core i7-640LM 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 2.13 GHz, with boost up to 2.93 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1288. Thermal design power (TDP): 25 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-800, DDR3-1066. Passmark benchmark score: 1,529 points. Launch price was $332.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron G1620T packs 2 cores / 2 threads, matching the Core i7-640LM's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the Celeron G1620T versus 2.93 GHz on the Core i7-640LM — a 19.9% clock advantage for the Core i7-640LM (base: 2.4 GHz vs 2.13 GHz). The Celeron G1620T uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Core i7-640LM uses Arrandale (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron G1620T scores 1,532 against the Core i7-640LM's 1,529 — a 0.2% lead for the Celeron G1620T. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron G1620T vs 4 MB (total) on the Core i7-640LM.

Feature	Celeron G1620T	Core i7-640LM
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 4
Boost Clock	2.4 GHz	2.93 GHz+22%
Base Clock	2.4 GHz+13%	2.13 GHz
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	4 MB (total)+100%
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	256 kB (per core)
Process	22 nm-31%	32 nm
Architecture	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)	Arrandale (2010−2011)
PassMark	1,532	1,529
Geekbench 6 Single	374	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	701	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron G1620T uses the LGA1155 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i7-640LM uses BGA1288 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the Celeron G1620T versus 1066 on the Core i7-640LM — the Celeron G1620T supports 25% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron G1620T supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 16 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: H61,B75,H77,Z77 (Celeron G1620T) and HM55,HM57,QM57,QS57 (Core i7-640LM).

Feature	Celeron G1620T	Core i7-640LM
Socket	LGA1155	BGA1288
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333+25%	1066
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB+300%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	Yes	No
PCIe Lanes	16	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x (Celeron G1620T) vs true (Core i7-640LM). Both include integrated graphics — HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) (Celeron G1620T) and Intel HD Graphics (Ironlake) (Core i7-640LM) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron G1620T targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron G1620T rivals Pentium G2020T; Core i7-640LM rivals Core 2 Duo SL9400.