Celeron N3160 vs Core i7-680UM

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 N3160 vs Core i7-680UM 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 N3160 vs Core i7-680UM: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron N3160

2016

Why buy it

✅Draws 4W instead of 18W, a 14W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics 400, while Core i7-680UM needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,195 vs 1,196).

Core i7-680UM

2010

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌350% higher power demand at 18W vs 4W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron N3160 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i7-680UM better than Celeron N3160?

Yes. Core i7-680UM is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 2.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.1% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core i7-680UM is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 2.2% 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, Core i7-680UM is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

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

Core i7-680UM still makes the most sense overall. Core i7-680UM comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 2.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Celeron N3160 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2016 vs 2010). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron N3160 vs Core i7-680UM Technical Specifications

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

Celeron N3160

The Celeron N3160 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 15 January 2016 (9 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 2.24 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: 1,195 points. Launch price was $107.

Core i7-680UM

The Core i7-680UM is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 26 September 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Arrandale (2010−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.46 GHz, with boost up to 2.53 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: 1,196 points. Launch price was $317.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron N3160 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Core i7-680UM offers 2 cores / 4 threads — the Celeron N3160 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.24 GHz on the Celeron N3160 versus 2.53 GHz on the Core i7-680UM — a 12.2% clock advantage for the Core i7-680UM (base: 1.6 GHz vs 1.46 GHz). The Celeron N3160 uses the Braswell (2015−2016) architecture (14 nm), while the Core i7-680UM uses Arrandale (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron N3160 scores 1,195 against the Core i7-680UM's 1,196 — a 0.1% lead for the Core i7-680UM. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Celeron N3160 vs 4 MB (total) on the Core i7-680UM.

Feature	Celeron N3160	Core i7-680UM
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 4
Boost Clock	2.24 GHz	2.53 GHz+13%
Base Clock	1.6 GHz+10%	1.46 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	1,195	1,196

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron N3160 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i7-680UM uses BGA1288 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron N3160	Core i7-680UM
Socket	FCBGA1170	BGA1288
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	1600	—
Max RAM Capacity	8	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	4	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: true (Celeron N3160) / not specified (Core i7-680UM). The Celeron N3160 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics 400), while the Core i7-680UM requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Celeron N3160 rivals AMD E2-9010.