Celeron M P4600 vs Core M-5Y31

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 P4600 vs Core M-5Y31 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 P4600 vs Core M-5Y31: 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 P4600

2010

Why buy it

✅Costs $195 less on MSRP ($86 MSRP vs $281 MSRP).
✅Delivers 223.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 21.9 vs 6.8 PassMark/$ ($86 MSRP vs $281 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,886 vs 1,905).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (2 MB vs 4 MB).

Core M-5Y31

2014

Why buy it

✅+100% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 2 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 6.8 vs 21.9 PassMark/$ ($281 MSRP vs $86 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is Core M-5Y31 better than Celeron M P4600?

Yes. Core M-5Y31 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 2.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 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, Core M-5Y31 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 2.2% 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, Core M-5Y31 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 100% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 2 MB).

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

Core M-5Y31 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Core M-5Y31 comes in 226.7% more expensive on MSRP at $281 MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 2.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron M P4600 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2010 platform. Even with 223.5% better value on paper (21.9 vs 6.8 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on PGA988.

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

Core M-5Y31 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2014 vs 2010), 100% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 2 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 4 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron M P4600 vs Core M-5Y31 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron M P4600

The Celeron M P4600 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 October 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Arrandale (2010−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB + 2 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,886 points. Launch price was $86.

Core M-5Y31

The Core M-5Y31 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 27 October 2014 (11 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell-Y (2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 0.9 GHz, with boost up to 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1234. Thermal design power (TDP): 4.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,905 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron M P4600 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, matching the Core M-5Y31's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Celeron M P4600 versus 2.4 GHz on the Core M-5Y31 — a 18.2% clock advantage for the Core M-5Y31. The Celeron M P4600 uses the Arrandale (2010−2011) architecture (32 nm), while the Core M-5Y31 uses Broadwell-Y (2014) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron M P4600 scores 1,886 against the Core M-5Y31's 1,905 — a 1% lead for the Core M-5Y31. L3 cache: 2 MB on the Celeron M P4600 vs 4 MB (total) on the Core M-5Y31.

Feature	Celeron M P4600	Core M-5Y31
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 4
Boost Clock	2 GHz	2.4 GHz+20%
Base Clock	—	0.9 GHz
L3 Cache	2 MB	4 MB (total)+100%
L2 Cache	512 kB+100%	256K (per core)
Process	32 nm	14 nm-56%
Architecture	Arrandale (2010−2011)	Broadwell-Y (2014)
PassMark	1,886	1,905+1%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron M P4600 uses the PGA988 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Core M-5Y31 uses FCBGA1234 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron M P4600	Core M-5Y31
Socket	PGA988	FCBGA1234
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron M P4600 was priced at $86, while the Core M-5Y31 came in at $281. On launch pricing ($86 vs $281), Celeron M P4600 was $195 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron M P4600 delivers 21.9 pts/$ vs 6.8 pts/$ for the Core M-5Y31 — making the Celeron M P4600 the 105.5% better value option.

Feature	Celeron M P4600	Core M-5Y31
MSRP	$86-69%	$281
Performance per Dollar	21.9+222%	6.8
Release Date	2010	2014

Search Celeron M P4600 on Amazon

Search Core M-5Y31 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.