
Celeron G3900T

Core M-5Y31
Celeron G3900T vs Core M-5Y31 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 G3900T vs Core M-5Y31 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 G3900T vs Core M-5Y31: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict
See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.
Celeron G3900T
2015Why buy it
- ✅Costs $239 less on MSRP ($42 MSRP vs $281 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 567.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 45.2 vs 6.8 PassMark/$ ($42 MSRP vs $281 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 35W instead of 512W, a 477W reduction.
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics 510, while Core M-5Y31 needs a discrete GPU.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (1,900 vs 1,905).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (2 MB vs 4 MB).
Core M-5Y31
2014Why buy it
- ✅+0.3% higher PassMark.
- ✅+100% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 2 MB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 6.8 vs 45.2 PassMark/$ ($281 MSRP vs $42 MSRP).
- ❌1362.9% higher power demand at 512W vs 35W.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron G3900T can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Quick Answers
So, is Celeron G3900T better than Core M-5Y31?
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 G3900T vs Core M-5Y31 Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Celeron G3900T
The Celeron G3900T is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Skylake (2015−2016) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.6 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-1866/2133, DDR3L-1333/1600. Passmark benchmark score: 1,900 points. Launch price was $69.

Core M-5Y31
The Core M-5Y31 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 0.9 GHz, with boost up to 2.4 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: 1,905 points. Launch price was $69.
Processing Power
The Celeron G3900T packs 2 cores / 2 threads, matching the Core M-5Y31's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the Celeron G3900T versus 2.4 GHz on the Core M-5Y31 — a 8% clock advantage for the Celeron G3900T (base: 2.6 GHz vs 0.9 GHz). The Celeron G3900T uses the Skylake (2015−2016) architecture (14 nm), while the Core M-5Y31 uses Broadwell-Y (2014) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron G3900T scores 1,900 against the Core M-5Y31's 1,905 — a 0.3% lead for the Core M-5Y31. L3 cache: 2 MB on the Celeron G3900T vs 4 MB (total) on the Core M-5Y31.
| Feature | Celeron G3900T | Core M-5Y31 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 4 |
| Boost Clock | 2.6 GHz+8% | 2.4 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.6 GHz+189% | 0.9 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 | 1,900 | 1,905 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 514 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 903 | — |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron G3900T uses the LGA1151 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core M-5Y31 uses FCBGA1234 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Celeron G3900T | Core M-5Y31 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1151 | FCBGA1234 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR4-2133 | — |
| Max RAM Capacity | 64 GB | — |
| RAM Channels | 2 | — |
| ECC Support | Yes | — |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | — |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: VT-x (Celeron G3900T) / not specified (Core M-5Y31). The Celeron G3900T includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics 510), while the Core M-5Y31 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron G3900T targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron G3900T rivals Pentium G4400T.
| Feature | Celeron G3900T | Core M-5Y31 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 G3900T was priced at $42, while the Core M-5Y31 came in at $281. On launch pricing ($42 vs $281), Celeron G3900T was $239 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron G3900T delivers 45.2 pts/$ vs 6.8 pts/$ for the Core M-5Y31 — making the Celeron G3900T the 147.9% better value option.
| Feature | Celeron G3900T | Core M-5Y31 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $42-85% | $281 |
| Performance per Dollar | 45.2+565% | 6.8 |
| Release Date | 2015 | 2014 |
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.














