Celeron N3000 vs Celeron N3010

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 N3000 vs Celeron N3010 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 N3000 vs Celeron N3010: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron N3000

2015

Why buy it

✅Draws 2W instead of 4W, a 2W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (705 vs 735).

Celeron N3010

2016

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $107 MSRP, while Celeron N3000 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌100% higher power demand at 4W vs 2W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N3010 better than Celeron N3000?

Yes. Celeron N3010 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you 4.3% 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 N3010 has the edge because it leads the single-thread side of this matchup with 7.7% higher max boost clock.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron N3010 is the stronger fit. You are getting 4.3% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron N3010 is the better buy right now. Celeron N3010 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $107 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 4.3% higher PassMark. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (6.9 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Celeron N3010 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2016 vs 2015) and 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 N3000 vs Celeron N3010 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron N3000

The Celeron N3000 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 April 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Braswell (2015−2016) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.04 GHz, with boost up to 2.08 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 4 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 705 points. Launch price was $107.

Celeron N3010

The Celeron N3010 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 10 January 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Airmont (2016) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.04 GHz, with boost up to 2.24 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 4 Watt. Memory support: DDR3L-1600. Passmark benchmark score: 735 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron N3000 and Celeron N3010 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.08 GHz on the Celeron N3000 versus 2.24 GHz on the Celeron N3010 — a 7.4% clock advantage for the Celeron N3010 (base: 1.04 GHz vs 1.04 GHz). The Celeron N3000 uses the Braswell (2015−2016) architecture (14 nm), while the Celeron N3010 uses Airmont (2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron N3000 scores 705 against the Celeron N3010's 735 — a 4.2% lead for the Celeron N3010. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron N3000	Celeron N3010
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.08 GHz	2.24 GHz+8%
Base Clock	1.04 GHz	1.04 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB	1 MB
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Braswell (2015−2016)	Airmont (2016)
PassMark	705	735+4%
Geekbench 6 Single	160	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	290	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

Both processors use the FCBGA1170 socket with PCIe 3.0. Both support up to DDR3L-1600 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: SoC (Celeron N3000) and Braswell (Celeron N3010).

Feature	Celeron N3000	Celeron N3010
Socket	FCBGA1170	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1600	1600
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	4	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Celeron N3000) vs true (Celeron N3010). Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics 400 (Celeron N3000) and Intel HD Graphics 400 (Celeron N3010) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron N3000 targets Budget Laptop, Celeron N3010 targets Budget Mobile. Direct competitor: Celeron N3000 rivals AMD E2-7110.

Feature	Celeron N3000	Celeron N3010
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	Intel HD Graphics 400	Intel HD Graphics 400
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	true
Target Use	Budget Laptop	Budget Mobile