Celeron M 575 vs Core i3-4158U

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 575 vs Core i3-4158U 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 575 vs Core i3-4158U: 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 575

2008

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 512W, a 511W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,917 vs 1,921).
❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while Core i3-4158U mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i3-4158U can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core i3-4158U

2013

Why buy it

✅+0.2% higher PassMark.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (12 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel Iris Graphics 5100, while Celeron M 575 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌51100% higher power demand at 512W vs 1W.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i3-4158U better than Celeron M 575?

Yes. Core i3-4158U 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, 0.2% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

For gaming, this matchup is basically a tie in the data we have.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i3-4158U is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

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

Core i3-4158U is still the much better call for a fresh build. Core i3-4158U comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron M 575 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2008 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (22.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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?

Core i3-4158U makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2008) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 4 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 575 vs Core i3-4158U Technical Specifications

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

Celeron M 575

The Celeron M 575 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 June 2008 (17 years ago). It is based on the Merom (2006−2008) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,917 points. Launch price was $86.

Core i3-4158U

The Core i3-4158U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 4 June 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1168. Thermal design power (TDP): 28 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,921 points. Launch price was $315.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron M 575 packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Core i3-4158U offers 2 cores / 4 threads — the Core i3-4158U has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Celeron M 575 versus 2 GHz on the Core i3-4158U — identical boost frequencies. The Celeron M 575 uses the Merom (2006−2008) architecture (65 nm), while the Core i3-4158U uses Haswell (2013−2015) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron M 575 scores 1,917 against the Core i3-4158U's 1,921 — a 0.2% lead for the Core i3-4158U.

Feature	Celeron M 575	Core i3-4158U
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	2 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	2 GHz	2 GHz
Base Clock	—	2 GHz
L3 Cache	—	3 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB	256K (per core)+25500%
Process	65 nm	22 nm-66%
Architecture	Merom (2006−2008)	Haswell (2013−2015)
PassMark	1,917	1,921
Geekbench 6 Single	—	457

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron M 575 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Core i3-4158U uses FCBGA1168 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 800 on the Celeron M 575 versus DDR3L-1600 on the Core i3-4158U — the Core i3-4158U supports 100% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core i3-4158U supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Celeron M 575) vs 12 (Core i3-4158U) — the Core i3-4158U offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: GL40,GM45 (Celeron M 575) and HM86,HM87 (Core i3-4158U).

Feature	Celeron M 575	Core i3-4158U
Socket	PGA478	FCBGA1168
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 3.0+173%
Max RAM Speed	800	DDR3L-1600+100%
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	16 GB+300%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	12

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: false (Celeron M 575) vs VT-x / VT-d / EPT (Core i3-4158U). The Core i3-4158U includes integrated graphics (Intel Iris Graphics 5100), while the Celeron M 575 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i3-4158U targets Multimedia. Direct competitor: Celeron M 575 rivals Mobile Sempron SI-40.