Celeron G3900E vs Core M-5Y51

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 G3900E vs Core M-5Y51 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 G3900E vs Core M-5Y51: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron G3900E

2016

Why buy it

✅+0.2% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $174 less on MSRP ($107 MSRP vs $281 MSRP).
✅Delivers 163.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 19.0 vs 7.2 PassMark/$ ($107 MSRP vs $281 MSRP).
✅Draws 35W instead of 512W, a 477W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (2 MB vs 4 MB).

Core M-5Y51

2014

Why buy it

✅+100% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 2 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,030 vs 2,034).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 7.2 vs 19.0 PassMark/$ ($281 MSRP vs $107 MSRP).
❌1362.9% higher power demand at 512W vs 35W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron G3900E can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron G3900E better than Core M-5Y51?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Core M-5Y51 is ahead with a 1.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron G3900E pulls ahead with 0.2% better PassMark. Core M-5Y51 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 G3900E 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 G3900E is the better buy right now. Celeron G3900E comes in $174 cheaper on MSRP at $107 MSRP versus $281 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.2% better PassMark. The compromise is that Core M-5Y51 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 1.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 163.1% better value on MSRP (19.0 vs 7.2 PassMark/$), 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 G3900E makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2016 vs 2014) 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 G3900E vs Core M-5Y51 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron G3900E

The Celeron G3900E is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2 January 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Skylake (2015−2016) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: LPDDR3-1866. Passmark benchmark score: 2,034 points. Launch price was $107.

Core M-5Y51

The Core M-5Y51 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 27 October 2014 (11 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell-Y (2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.1 GHz, with boost up to 2.6 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1234. Thermal design power (TDP): 4.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,030 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron G3900E packs 2 cores / 2 threads, matching the Core M-5Y51's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the Celeron G3900E versus 2.6 GHz on the Core M-5Y51 — a 8% clock advantage for the Core M-5Y51. The Celeron G3900E uses the Skylake (2015−2016) architecture (14 nm), while the Core M-5Y51 uses Broadwell-Y (2014) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron G3900E scores 2,034 against the Core M-5Y51's 2,030 — a 0.2% lead for the Celeron G3900E. L3 cache: 2 MB on the Celeron G3900E vs 4 MB (total) on the Core M-5Y51.

Feature	Celeron G3900E	Core M-5Y51
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 4
Boost Clock	2.4 GHz	2.6 GHz+8%
Base Clock	—	1.1 GHz
L3 Cache	2 MB	4 MB (total)+100%
L2 Cache	512 kB+100%	256K (per core)
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Skylake (2015−2016)	Broadwell-Y (2014)
PassMark	2,034	2,030
Geekbench 6 Single	699	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	948	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x (Celeron G3900E) / not specified (Core M-5Y51). The Celeron G3900E includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics 510), while the Core M-5Y51 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron G3900E targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron G3900E rivals Pentium G4400.

Feature	Celeron G3900E	Core M-5Y51
Integrated GPU	Yes	—
IGPU Model	HD Graphics 510	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	VT-x	—
Target Use	Budget	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron G3900E was priced at $107, while the Core M-5Y51 came in at $281. On launch pricing ($107 vs $281), Celeron G3900E was $174 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron G3900E delivers 19.0 pts/$ vs 7.2 pts/$ for the Core M-5Y51 — making the Celeron G3900E the 89.8% better value option.

Feature	Celeron G3900E	Core M-5Y51
MSRP	$107-62%	$281
Performance per Dollar	19.0+164%	7.2
Release Date	2016	2014

Search Celeron G3900E on Amazon

Search Core M-5Y51 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.