Celeron N3150 vs Core i7-640UM

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 N3150 vs Core i7-640UM 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 N3150 vs Core i7-640UM: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron N3150

2015

Why buy it

✅+0.8% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 6W instead of 18W, a 12W reduction.

Trade-offs

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

Core i7-640UM

2010

Why buy it

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

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,168 vs 1,177).
❌200% higher power demand at 18W vs 6W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N3150 better than Core i7-640UM?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Core i7-640UM is ahead with a 2.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron N3150 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 N3150 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.8% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Celeron N3150 still makes the most sense overall. Celeron N3150 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.8% better PassMark.

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

Celeron N3150 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 vs 2010) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 threads instead of 2/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron N3150 vs Core i7-640UM Technical Specifications

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

Celeron N3150

The Celeron N3150 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 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.08 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,177 points. Launch price was $107.

Core i7-640UM

The Core i7-640UM 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 1.2 GHz, with boost up to 2.27 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1288. Thermal design power (TDP): 18 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-800. Passmark benchmark score: 1,168 points. Launch price was $305.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron N3150 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Core i7-640UM offers 2 cores / 4 threads — the Celeron N3150 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.08 GHz on the Celeron N3150 versus 2.27 GHz on the Core i7-640UM — a 8.7% clock advantage for the Core i7-640UM (base: 1.6 GHz vs 1.2 GHz). The Celeron N3150 uses the Braswell (2015−2016) architecture (14 nm), while the Core i7-640UM uses Arrandale (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron N3150 scores 1,177 against the Core i7-640UM's 1,168 — a 0.8% lead for the Celeron N3150. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Celeron N3150 vs 4 MB (total) on the Core i7-640UM.

Feature	Celeron N3150	Core i7-640UM
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 4
Boost Clock	2.08 GHz	2.27 GHz+9%
Base Clock	1.6 GHz+33%	1.2 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	4 MB (total)
L2 Cache	2 MB+700%	256 kB (per core)
Process	14 nm-56%	32 nm
Architecture	Braswell (2015−2016)	Arrandale (2010−2011)
PassMark	1,177	1,168
Geekbench 6 Single	—	226
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	590

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron N3150 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i7-640UM uses BGA1288 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 1600 on the Celeron N3150 versus DDR3-1066 on the Core i7-640UM — the Celeron N3150 supports 50.1% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 8 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 4 (Celeron N3150) vs 16 (Core i7-640UM) — the Core i7-640UM offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: FCBGA1170 (Celeron N3150) and HM55,QM57 (Core i7-640UM).

Feature	Celeron N3150	Core i7-640UM
Socket	FCBGA1170	BGA1288
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	1600+50%	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 N3150) vs VT-x, VT-d (Core i7-640UM). Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics (Braswell) (Celeron N3150) and Intel HD Graphics (Ironlake) (Core i7-640UM) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i7-640UM targets Legacy Laptop. Direct competitor: Celeron N3150 rivals AMD E2-7110; Core i7-640UM rivals Core 2 Duo SU9600.

Feature	Celeron N3150	Core i7-640UM
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	Intel HD Graphics (Braswell)	Intel HD Graphics (Ironlake)
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	true	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	—	Legacy Laptop