Celeron J3355 vs Celeron N3160

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 J3355 vs Celeron N3160 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 J3355 vs Celeron N3160: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron J3355

2016

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌150% higher power demand at 10W vs 4W.

Celeron N3160

2016

Why buy it

✅Draws 4W instead of 10W, a 6W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,195 vs 1,203).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron J3355 better than Celeron N3160?

Yes. Celeron J3355 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.7% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron J3355 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.1% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron J3355 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.7% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron J3355 still makes the most sense overall. Celeron J3355 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Celeron N3160 is the safer long-term CPU choice because it gives you more room to grow and a better platform outlook.

Celeron J3355 vs Celeron N3160 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron J3355

The Celeron J3355 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 30 August 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Apollo Lake (2014−2016) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2.5 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1296. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Memory support: DDR3, DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 1,203 points. Launch price was $107.

Celeron N3160

The Celeron N3160 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 15 January 2016 (9 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 2.24 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: 1,195 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron J3355 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Celeron N3160 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Celeron N3160 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.5 GHz on the Celeron J3355 versus 2.24 GHz on the Celeron N3160 — a 11% clock advantage for the Celeron J3355 (base: 2 GHz vs 1.6 GHz). The Celeron J3355 uses the Apollo Lake (2014−2016) architecture (14 nm), while the Celeron N3160 uses Braswell (2015−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron J3355 scores 1,203 against the Celeron N3160's 1,195 — a 0.7% lead for the Celeron J3355. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron J3355	Celeron N3160
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	2.5 GHz+12%	2.24 GHz
Base Clock	2 GHz+25%	1.6 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB	2 MB+100%
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Apollo Lake (2014−2016)	Braswell (2015−2016)
PassMark	1,203	1,195
Geekbench 6 Single	450	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	850	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron J3355 uses the FCBGA1296 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron N3160 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2400 on the Celeron J3355 versus 1600 on the Celeron N3160 — the Celeron J3355 supports 50% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 8 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 6 (Celeron J3355) vs 4 (Celeron N3160) — the Celeron J3355 offers 2 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: N/A (SoC) (Celeron J3355) and FCBGA1170 (Celeron N3160).

Feature	Celeron J3355	Celeron N3160
Socket	FCBGA1296	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2400+50%	1600
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	6+50%	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x (Celeron J3355) vs true (Celeron N3160). Both include integrated graphics — HD Graphics 500 (Celeron J3355) and Intel HD Graphics 400 (Celeron N3160) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron J3355 targets Low Power. Direct competitor: Celeron J3355 rivals Pentium J4205; Celeron N3160 rivals AMD E2-9010.