Celeron G465 vs Celeron N3150

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 G465 vs Celeron N3150 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 G465 vs Celeron N3150: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron G465

2012

Why buy it

✅+0.7% higher PassMark.
✅300% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $70 MSRP, while Celeron N3150 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌483.3% higher power demand at 35W vs 6W.

Celeron N3150

2015

Why buy it

✅Draws 6W instead of 35W, a 29W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,177 vs 1,185).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N3150 better than Celeron G465?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron N3150 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 G465 pulls ahead with 0.7% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron G465 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.7% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron N3150 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Celeron N3150 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $70 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron G465 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2012 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (16.9 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on LGA1155.

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

Celeron N3150 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 vs 2012). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron G465 vs Celeron N3150 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron G465

The Celeron G465 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 1 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.9 GHz, with boost up to 1.9 GHz. L3 cache: 1.5 MB. L2 cache: 256 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1155. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,185 points. Launch price was $80.

Celeron N3150

The Celeron N3150 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 April 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Braswell (2015−2016) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.08 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,177 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron G465 packs 1 cores / 2 threads, while the Celeron N3150 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Celeron N3150 has 3 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1.9 GHz on the Celeron G465 versus 2.08 GHz on the Celeron N3150 — a 9% clock advantage for the Celeron N3150 (base: 1.9 GHz vs 1.6 GHz). The Celeron G465 uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron N3150 uses Braswell (2015−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron G465 scores 1,185 against the Celeron N3150's 1,177 — a 0.7% lead for the Celeron G465. L3 cache: 1.5 MB on the Celeron G465 vs 0 kB on the Celeron N3150.

Feature	Celeron G465	Celeron N3150
Cores / Threads	1 / 2	4 / 4+300%
Boost Clock	1.9 GHz	2.08 GHz+9%
Base Clock	1.9 GHz+19%	1.6 GHz
L3 Cache	1.5 MB	0 kB
L2 Cache	256 kB	2 MB+700%
Process	32 nm	14 nm-56%
Architecture	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)	Braswell (2015−2016)
PassMark	1,185	1,177
Geekbench 6 Single	300	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron G465 uses the LGA1155 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron N3150 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1066 on the Celeron G465 versus 1600 on the Celeron N3150 — the Celeron N3150 supports 50.1% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron G465 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. PCIe lanes: 16 (Celeron G465) vs 4 (Celeron N3150) — the Celeron G465 offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H61,B65,H67,Z68 (Celeron G465) and FCBGA1170 (Celeron N3150).

Feature	Celeron G465	Celeron N3150
Socket	LGA1155	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1066	1600+50%
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB+300%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16+300%	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x (Celeron G465) vs true (Celeron N3150). Both include integrated graphics — HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (Celeron G465) and Intel HD Graphics (Braswell) (Celeron N3150) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron G465 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron G465 rivals Pentium G630; Celeron N3150 rivals AMD E2-7110.