
Celeron G3920

Core m5-6Y57
Celeron G3920 vs Core m5-6Y57 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 G3920 vs Core m5-6Y57 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 G3920 vs Core m5-6Y57: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict
See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.
Celeron G3920
2015Why buy it
- β Better for gaming: +3.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- β Costs $241 less on MSRP ($40 MSRP vs $281 MSRP).
- β Delivers 607.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 59.0 vs 8.3 PassMark/$ ($40 MSRP vs $281 MSRP).
- β 100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- β Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics 510, while Core m5-6Y57 needs a discrete GPU.
Trade-offs
- β1033.3% higher power demand at 51W vs 4.5W.
Core m5-6Y57
2015Why buy it
- β Draws 5W instead of 51W, a 47W reduction.
Trade-offs
- βWorse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron G3920 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- βLower PassMark (2,342 vs 2,358).
- βLower PassMark per dollar, at 8.3 vs 59.0 PassMark/$ ($281 MSRP vs $40 MSRP).
- βNo integrated graphics, while Celeron G3920 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Quick Answers
So, is Celeron G3920 better than Core m5-6Y57?
Which one is better for gaming?
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 G3920 vs Core m5-6Y57 Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Celeron G3920
The Celeron G3920 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Skylake (2015β2016) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.9 GHz, with boost up to 2.9 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 51 Watt. Memory support: DDR3, DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 2,358 points. Launch price was $52.

Core m5-6Y57
The Core m5-6Y57 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Skylake-Y (2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.1 GHz, with boost up to 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1515. Thermal design power (TDP): 4.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,342 points. Launch price was $281.
Processing Power
The Celeron G3920 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, matching the Core m5-6Y57's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 2.9 GHz on the Celeron G3920 versus 2.8 GHz on the Core m5-6Y57 β a 3.5% clock advantage for the Celeron G3920 (base: 2.9 GHz vs 1.1 GHz). The Celeron G3920 uses the Skylake (2015β2016) architecture (14 nm), while the Core m5-6Y57 uses Skylake-Y (2015) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron G3920 scores 2,358 against the Core m5-6Y57's 2,342 β a 0.7% lead for the Celeron G3920. Both processors carry 4 MB (total) of L3 cache.
| Feature | Celeron G3920 | Core m5-6Y57 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 4 |
| Boost Clock | 2.9 GHz+4% | 2.8 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.9 GHz+164% | 1.1 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 4 MB (total) | 4 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 256 kB (per core) |
| Process | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Architecture | Skylake (2015β2016) | Skylake-Y (2015) |
| PassMark | 2,358 | 2,342 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 699 | β |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 948 | β |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron G3920 uses the LGA1151 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core m5-6Y57 uses FCBGA1515 (PCIe 3.0) β making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Celeron G3920 | Core m5-6Y57 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1151 | FCBGA1515 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR4-2133 | β |
| Max RAM Capacity | 64 GB | β |
| RAM Channels | 2 | β |
| ECC Support | Yes | β |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | β |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: VT-x (Celeron G3920) / not specified (Core m5-6Y57). The Celeron G3920 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics 510), while the Core m5-6Y57 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron G3920 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron G3920 rivals Pentium G4400.
| Feature | Celeron G3920 | Core m5-6Y57 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | β |
| IGPU Model | HD Graphics 510 | β |
| Unlocked | No | β |
| AVX-512 | No | β |
| Virtualization | VT-x | β |
| Target Use | Budget | β |
Value Analysis
At launch, the Celeron G3920 was priced at $40, while the Core m5-6Y57 came in at $281. On launch pricing ($40 vs $281), Celeron G3920 was $241 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron G3920 delivers 59.0 pts/$ vs 8.3 pts/$ for the Core m5-6Y57 β making the Celeron G3920 the 150.5% better value option.
| Feature | Celeron G3920 | Core m5-6Y57 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $40-86% | $281 |
| Performance per Dollar | 59.0+611% | 8.3 |
| Release Date | 2015 | 2015 |
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.














