Celeron N2810 vs Core i7-620LM

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 i7-620LM 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 i7-620LM: 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

✅+0.8% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 7W instead of 25W, a 18W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Core i7-620LM

2010

Why buy it

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

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,463 vs 1,474).
❌Launch MSRP is still $300 MSRP, while Celeron N2810 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌257.1% higher power demand at 25W vs 7W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N2810 better than Core i7-620LM?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Core i7-620LM is ahead with a 2.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron N2810 pulls ahead with 0.8% better PassMark.

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 0.8% 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 $300 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.8% better PassMark. Core i7-620LM 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 2.7% 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 2010) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron N2810 vs Core i7-620LM 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 i7-620LM

The Core i7-620LM is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 7 January 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Arrandale (2010−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1288. Thermal design power (TDP): 25 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-800, DDR3-1066. Passmark benchmark score: 1,463 points. Launch price was $300.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron N2810 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, matching the Core i7-620LM's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Celeron N2810 versus 2.8 GHz on the Core i7-620LM — a 33.3% clock advantage for the Core i7-620LM (base: 2 GHz vs 2 GHz). The Celeron N2810 uses the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture (22 nm), while the Core i7-620LM uses Arrandale (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron N2810 scores 1,474 against the Core i7-620LM's 1,463 — a 0.7% lead for the Celeron N2810. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Celeron N2810 vs 4 MB (total) on the Core i7-620LM.

Feature	Celeron N2810	Core i7-620LM
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 4
Boost Clock	2 GHz	2.8 GHz+40%
Base Clock	2 GHz	2 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	4 MB (total)
L2 Cache	512K (per core)+100%	256 kB (per core)
Process	22 nm-31%	32 nm
Architecture	Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)	Arrandale (2010−2011)
PassMark	1,474	1,463
Geekbench 6 Single	—	450
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	900

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron N2810 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Core i7-620LM uses BGA1288 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to 1066 memory speed. Both support up to 8 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 4 (Celeron N2810) vs 16 (Core i7-620LM) — the Core i7-620LM offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: FCBGA1170 (Celeron N2810) and QM57,HM55 (Core i7-620LM).

Feature	Celeron N2810	Core i7-620LM
Socket	FCBGA1170	BGA1288
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	1066	DDR3-1066
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	4	16+300%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: true (Celeron N2810) vs VT-x, VT-d (Core i7-620LM). Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Celeron N2810) and Intel HD Graphics (Core i7-620LM) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i7-620LM targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron N2810 rivals AMD A4-1250; Core i7-620LM rivals Ryzen 5 3500U.