Celeron M 560 vs Pentium G3250

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 M 560 vs Pentium G3250 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 M 560 vs Pentium G3250: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron M 560

2008

Why buy it

✅Costs $85 less on MSRP ($86 MSRP vs $171 MSRP).
✅Delivers 98.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 23.3 vs 11.8 PassMark/$ ($86 MSRP vs $171 MSRP).
✅Draws 1W instead of 54W, a 53W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,008 vs 2,010).

Pentium G3250

2014

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 11.8 vs 23.3 PassMark/$ ($171 MSRP vs $86 MSRP).
❌5300% higher power demand at 54W vs 1W.

Quick Answers

So, is Pentium G3250 better than Celeron M 560?

Yes. Pentium G3250 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.1% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Pentium G3250 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.3% 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, Pentium G3250 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Pentium G3250 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Pentium G3250 comes in 98.8% more expensive on MSRP at $171 MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron M 560 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2008 platform. Even with 98.6% better value on paper (23.3 vs 11.8 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on PGA478.

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

Pentium G3250 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2014 vs 2008) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 1/1. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron M 560 vs Pentium G3250 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron M 560

The Celeron M 560 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Merom (2006−2008) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.13 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 2,008 points. Launch price was $69.

Pentium G3250

The Pentium G3250 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 21 July 2014 (11 years ago). It is based on the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1150. Thermal design power (TDP): 53 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,010 points. Launch price was $171.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron M 560 packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Pentium G3250 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Pentium G3250 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.13 GHz on the Celeron M 560 versus 3.2 GHz on the Pentium G3250 — a 40.2% clock advantage for the Pentium G3250. The Celeron M 560 uses the Merom (2006−2008) architecture (65 nm), while the Pentium G3250 uses Haswell (2013−2015) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron M 560 scores 2,008 against the Pentium G3250's 2,010 — a 0.1% lead for the Pentium G3250.

Feature	Celeron M 560	Pentium G3250
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	2 / 2+100%
Boost Clock	2.13 GHz	3.2 GHz+50%
Base Clock	—	3.2 GHz
L3 Cache	—	3 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB+300%	256 kB (per core)
Process	65 nm	22 nm-66%
Architecture	Merom (2006−2008)	Haswell (2013−2015)
PassMark	2,008	2,010

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron M 560 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Pentium G3250 uses LGA1150 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron M 560	Pentium G3250
Socket	PGA478	LGA1150
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 3.0+173%
Max RAM Speed	667	—
Max RAM Capacity	4	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	0	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: false (Celeron M 560) / not specified (Pentium G3250). Direct competitor: Celeron M 560 rivals Mobile Sempron 3600+.

Feature	Celeron M 560	Pentium G3250
Integrated GPU	No	—
IGPU Model	None	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	false	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron M 560 was priced at $86, while the Pentium G3250 came in at $171. On launch pricing ($86 vs $171), Celeron M 560 was $85 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron M 560 delivers 23.3 pts/$ vs 11.8 pts/$ for the Pentium G3250 — making the Celeron M 560 the 66.1% better value option.

Feature	Celeron M 560	Pentium G3250
MSRP	$86-50%	$171
Performance per Dollar	23.3+97%	11.8
Release Date	2008	2014

Search Celeron M 560 on Amazon

Search Pentium G3250 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.