Celeron N3050 vs Core 2 Duo E8335

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 N3050 vs Core 2 Duo E8335 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 N3050 vs Core 2 Duo E8335: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron N3050

2015

Why buy it

✅Draws 6W instead of 44W, a 38W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Braswell), while Core 2 Duo E8335 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

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

Core 2 Duo E8335

2009

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,094 vs 1,099).
❌Launch MSRP is still $200 MSRP, while Celeron N3050 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌633.3% higher power demand at 44W vs 6W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron N3050 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N3050 better than Core 2 Duo E8335?

Yes. Celeron N3050 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.5% 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 N3050 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.2% 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 N3050 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.5% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron N3050 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Celeron N3050 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $200 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core 2 Duo E8335 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2009 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (5.5 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on P.

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

Celeron N3050 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 vs 2009) 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 N3050 vs Core 2 Duo E8335 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron N3050

The Celeron N3050 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 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.16 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,099 points. Launch price was $107.

Core 2 Duo E8335

The Core 2 Duo E8335 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2008-01-01. It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.933 GHz, with boost up to 0.93 GHz. L2 cache: 6 MB (total). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: P. Thermal design power (TDP): 44 Watt. Memory support: DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,094 points. Launch price was $249.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron N3050 and Core 2 Duo E8335 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.16 GHz on the Celeron N3050 versus 0.93 GHz on the Core 2 Duo E8335 — a 79.6% clock advantage for the Celeron N3050 (base: 1.6 GHz vs 2.933 GHz). The Celeron N3050 uses the Braswell (2015−2016) architecture (14 nm), while the Core 2 Duo E8335 uses Penryn (2008−2011) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron N3050 scores 1,099 against the Core 2 Duo E8335's 1,094 — a 0.5% lead for the Celeron N3050.

Feature	Celeron N3050	Core 2 Duo E8335
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.16 GHz+132%	0.93 GHz
Base Clock	1.6 GHz	2.933 GHz+83%
L3 Cache	0 kB	—
L2 Cache	1 MB	6 MB (total)+500%
Process	14 nm-69%	45 nm
Architecture	Braswell (2015−2016)	Penryn (2008−2011)
PassMark	1,099	1,094
Geekbench 6 Single	221	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	440	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron N3050 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core 2 Duo E8335 uses P (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron N3050	Core 2 Duo E8335
Socket	FCBGA1170	P
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+173%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1600	—
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	4	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x / EPT (Celeron N3050) / not specified (Core 2 Duo E8335). The Celeron N3050 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Braswell)), while the Core 2 Duo E8335 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron N3050 targets Netbook. Direct competitor: Celeron N3050 rivals AMD E2-7110.