Celeron N2920 vs Core i3-330M

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 N2920 vs Core i3-330M 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 N2920 vs Core i3-330M: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron N2920

2013

Why buy it

✅Draws 7W instead of 512W, a 505W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,030 vs 1,032).

Core i3-330M

2010

Why buy it

✅+0.2% higher PassMark.
✅300% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌7214.3% higher power demand at 512W vs 7W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N2920 better than Core i3-330M?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron N2920 is ahead with a 1.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Core i3-330M pulls ahead with 0.2% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i3-330M is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

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

Celeron N2920 still makes the most sense overall. Celeron N2920 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Celeron N2920 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2010). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron N2920 vs Core i3-330M Technical Specifications

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

Celeron N2920

The Celeron N2920 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 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.86 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: 1,030 points. Launch price was $107.

Core i3-330M

The Core i3-330M 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 2.13 GHz, with boost up to 0.13 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-800, DDR3-1066. Passmark benchmark score: 1,032 points. Launch price was $49.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron N2920 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Core i3-330M offers 2 cores / 4 threads — the Celeron N2920 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Celeron N2920 versus 0.13 GHz on the Core i3-330M — a 175.6% clock advantage for the Celeron N2920 (base: 1.86 GHz vs 2.13 GHz). The Celeron N2920 uses the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture (22 nm), while the Core i3-330M uses Arrandale (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron N2920 scores 1,030 against the Core i3-330M's 1,032 — a 0.2% lead for the Core i3-330M. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Celeron N2920 vs 3 MB (total) on the Core i3-330M.

Feature	Celeron N2920	Core i3-330M
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 4
Boost Clock	2 GHz+1438%	0.13 GHz
Base Clock	1.86 GHz	2.13 GHz+15%
L3 Cache	0 kB	3 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	1,030	1,032
Geekbench 6 Single	—	317
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	689

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron N2920 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Core i3-330M uses PGA988 (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 N2920) vs 16 (Core i3-330M) — the Core i3-330M offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: FCBGA1170 (Celeron N2920) and HM55,PM55,QM57 (Core i3-330M).

Feature	Celeron N2920	Core i3-330M
Socket	FCBGA1170	PGA988
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 N2920) vs VT-x / EPT (Core i3-330M). Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Celeron N2920) and Intel HD Graphics (Arrandale) (Core i3-330M) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i3-330M targets Legacy Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron N2920 rivals AMD A4-6210; Core i3-330M rivals AMD Athlon II P320.

Feature	Celeron N2920	Core i3-330M
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)	Intel HD Graphics (Arrandale)
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	true	VT-x / EPT
Target Use	—	Legacy Budget