Celeron N2807 vs Core i7-3517U

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 N2807 vs Core i7-3517U 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 N2807 vs Core i7-3517U: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron N2807

2014

Why buy it

✅Draws 4W instead of 512W, a 508W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,093 vs 2,108).
❌Launch MSRP is still $107 MSRP, while Core i7-3517U mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Core i7-3517U

2012

Why buy it

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

Trade-offs

❌12700% higher power demand at 512W vs 4W.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i7-3517U better than Celeron N2807?

Yes. Core i7-3517U is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.7% 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, Core i7-3517U is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.7% 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 i7-3517U is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.7% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

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

Core i7-3517U is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Core i7-3517U comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $107 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron N2807 only looks good on raw value math because it is a cheap legacy laptop chip, not because it is a real desktop gaming recommendation. It simply does not keep up in modern games.

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

Celeron N2807 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2014 vs 2012). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron N2807 vs Core i7-3517U Technical Specifications

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

Celeron N2807

The Celeron N2807 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 23 February 2014 (11 years ago). It is based on the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.58 GHz, with boost up to 2.16 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 4.3 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,093 points. Launch price was $107.

Core i7-3517U

The Core i7-3517U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 June 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.9 GHz, with boost up to 3 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1023. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR3/L/-RS 1333/1600. Passmark benchmark score: 2,108 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron N2807 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, matching the Core i7-3517U's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 2.16 GHz on the Celeron N2807 versus 3 GHz on the Core i7-3517U — a 32.6% clock advantage for the Core i7-3517U (base: 1.58 GHz vs 1.9 GHz). The Celeron N2807 uses the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture (22 nm), while the Core i7-3517U uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron N2807 scores 2,093 against the Core i7-3517U's 2,108 — a 0.7% lead for the Core i7-3517U. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Celeron N2807 vs 4 MB (total) on the Core i7-3517U.

Feature	Celeron N2807	Core i7-3517U
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 4
Boost Clock	2.16 GHz	3 GHz+39%
Base Clock	1.58 GHz	1.9 GHz+20%
L3 Cache	0 kB	4 MB (total)
L2 Cache	512K (per core)+100%	256K (per core)
Process	22 nm	22 nm
Architecture	Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
PassMark	2,093	2,108
Geekbench 6 Single	180	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	320	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron N2807 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Core i7-3517U uses BGA1023 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3L-1333 on the Celeron N2807 versus 1600 on the Core i7-3517U — the Core i7-3517U supports 20% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core i7-3517U supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 700% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (Celeron N2807) vs 2 (Core i7-3517U). PCIe lanes: 4 (Celeron N2807) vs 16 (Core i7-3517U) — the Core i7-3517U offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SoC (Celeron N2807) and HM76,UM77,QM77,QS77 (Core i7-3517U).

Feature	Celeron N2807	Core i7-3517U
Socket	FCBGA1170	BGA1023
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1333	1600+20%
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	32 GB+700%
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	4	16+300%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x (Celeron N2807) vs true (Core i7-3517U). Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Celeron N2807) and Intel HD Graphics 4000 (Core i7-3517U) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron N2807 targets Netbook. Direct competitor: Celeron N2807 rivals AMD E1-6010; Core i7-3517U rivals AMD A10-4655M.