Celeron N2815 vs Celeron N2820

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 N2815 vs Celeron N2820 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 N2815 vs Celeron N2820: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron N2815

2013

Why buy it

✅+0.7% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 1W instead of 7W, a 6W reduction.

Trade-offs

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

Celeron N2820

2013

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,061 vs 1,068).
❌600% higher power demand at 7W vs 1W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N2815 better than Celeron N2820?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron N2820 is ahead with a 2.2% average FPS lead across 41 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron N2815 pulls ahead with 0.7% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron N2815 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.7% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron N2815 still makes the most sense overall. Celeron N2815 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.7% better PassMark.

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

Celeron N2815 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron N2815 vs Celeron N2820 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron N2815

The Celeron N2815 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 December 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 1.86 GHz, with boost up to 2.13 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 7.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3L-1066. Passmark benchmark score: 1,068 points. Launch price was $107.

Celeron N2820

The Celeron N2820 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 December 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 2.13 GHz, with boost up to 2.39 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: 1,061 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron N2815 and Celeron N2820 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.13 GHz on the Celeron N2815 versus 2.39 GHz on the Celeron N2820 — a 11.5% clock advantage for the Celeron N2820 (base: 1.86 GHz vs 2.13 GHz). Both are built on the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture using a 22 nm process. In PassMark, the Celeron N2815 scores 1,068 against the Celeron N2820's 1,061 — a 0.7% lead for the Celeron N2815. L3 cache: 1 MB on the Celeron N2815 vs 0 kB on the Celeron N2820.

Feature	Celeron N2815	Celeron N2820
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.13 GHz	2.39 GHz+12%
Base Clock	1.86 GHz	2.13 GHz+15%
L3 Cache	1 MB	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB	512K (per core)+51100%
Process	22 nm	22 nm
Architecture	Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)	Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)
PassMark	1,068	1,061
Geekbench 6 Single	—	220
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	400

🧠

Memory & Platform

Both processors use the FCBGA1170 socket with PCIe 2.0. Both support up to 1066 memory speed. Both support up to 8 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 4 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: FCBGA1170 (Celeron N2815) and SoC (Celeron N2820).

Feature	Celeron N2815	Celeron N2820
Socket	FCBGA1170	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	1066	DDR3L-1066
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	4	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: true (Celeron N2815) vs VT-x (Celeron N2820). Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Celeron N2815) and Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Celeron N2820) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron N2820 targets Netbook. Direct competitor: Celeron N2815 rivals AMD A4-1250; Celeron N2820 rivals AMD A6-6310.

Feature	Celeron N2815	Celeron N2820
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)	Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	true	VT-x
Target Use	—	Netbook