Celeron N2810 vs Core 2 Solo SU3500

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 N2810 vs Core 2 Solo SU3500 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 N2810 vs Core 2 Solo SU3500: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron N2810

2013

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.2% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail), while Core 2 Solo SU3500 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌133.3% higher power demand at 7W vs 3W.

Core 2 Solo SU3500

2009

Why buy it

✅Draws 3W instead of 7W, a 4W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron N2810 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (1,468 vs 1,474).
❌Launch MSRP is still $262 MSRP, while Celeron N2810 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron N2810 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N2810 better than Core 2 Solo SU3500?

Yes. Celeron N2810 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 3.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.4% 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, Celeron N2810 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 3.2% 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, Celeron N2810 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.4% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron N2810 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Celeron N2810 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $262 MSRP, and it still gives you a 3.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core 2 Solo SU3500 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, especially when the gap is already 3.2% in the shared gaming data.

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

Celeron N2810 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2009) 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 N2810 vs Core 2 Solo SU3500 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron N2810

The Celeron N2810 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 11 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 7.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,474 points. Launch price was $260.

Core 2 Solo SU3500

The Core 2 Solo SU3500 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 April 2009 (16 years ago). It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Base frequency is 1.3 GHz, with boost up to 1.4 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB. L2 cache: 3 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: BGA956. Thermal design power (TDP): 5.5 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 1,468 points. Launch price was $262.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron N2810 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Core 2 Solo SU3500 offers 1 cores / 1 threads — the Celeron N2810 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Celeron N2810 versus 1.4 GHz on the Core 2 Solo SU3500 — a 35.3% clock advantage for the Celeron N2810 (base: 2 GHz vs 1.3 GHz). The Celeron N2810 uses the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture (22 nm), while the Core 2 Solo SU3500 uses Penryn (2008−2011) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron N2810 scores 1,474 against the Core 2 Solo SU3500's 1,468 — a 0.4% lead for the Celeron N2810. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Celeron N2810 vs 3 MB on the Core 2 Solo SU3500.

Feature	Celeron N2810	Core 2 Solo SU3500
Cores / Threads	2 / 2+100%	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2 GHz+43%	1.4 GHz
Base Clock	2 GHz+54%	1.3 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	3 MB
L2 Cache	512K (per core)+16967%	3 MB
Process	22 nm-51%	45 nm
Architecture	Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)	Penryn (2008−2011)
PassMark	1,474	1,468

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron N2810 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Core 2 Solo SU3500 uses BGA956 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron N2810	Core 2 Solo SU3500
Socket	FCBGA1170	BGA956
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0+82%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	1066	—
Max RAM Capacity	8	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	4	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: true (Celeron N2810) / not specified (Core 2 Solo SU3500). The Celeron N2810 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)), while the Core 2 Solo SU3500 requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Celeron N2810 rivals AMD A4-1250.