Celeron N3450 vs Core i3-2375M

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 N3450 vs Core i3-2375M 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 N3450 vs Core i3-2375M: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron N3450

2016

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +5.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 6W instead of 512W, a 506W reduction.

Trade-offs

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

Core i3-2375M

2013

Why buy it

✅166.7% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 6) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron N3450 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (1,978 vs 1,981).
❌8433.3% higher power demand at 512W vs 6W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N3450 better than Core i3-2375M?

Yes. Celeron N3450 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 5.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.2% 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 N3450 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 5.4% 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 N3450 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Celeron N3450 still makes the most sense overall. Celeron N3450 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 5.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Celeron N3450 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2016 vs 2013) 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 N3450 vs Core i3-2375M Technical Specifications

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

Celeron N3450

The Celeron N3450 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 30 August 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Apollo Lake (2014−2016) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.1 GHz, with boost up to 2.2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1296. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR3, DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 1,981 points. Launch price was $107.

Core i3-2375M

The Core i3-2375M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 February 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.5 GHz, with boost up to 1.5 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1023. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,978 points. Launch price was $250.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron N3450 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Core i3-2375M offers 2 cores / 4 threads — the Celeron N3450 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.2 GHz on the Celeron N3450 versus 1.5 GHz on the Core i3-2375M — a 37.8% clock advantage for the Celeron N3450 (base: 1.1 GHz vs 1.5 GHz). The Celeron N3450 uses the Apollo Lake (2014−2016) architecture (14 nm), while the Core i3-2375M uses Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron N3450 scores 1,981 against the Core i3-2375M's 1,978 — a 0.2% lead for the Celeron N3450. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Celeron N3450 vs 3 MB on the Core i3-2375M.

Feature	Celeron N3450	Core i3-2375M
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 4
Boost Clock	2.2 GHz+47%	1.5 GHz
Base Clock	1.1 GHz	1.5 GHz+36%
L3 Cache	0 kB	3 MB
L2 Cache	2 MB+300%	512 kB
Process	14 nm-56%	32 nm
Architecture	Apollo Lake (2014−2016)	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
PassMark	1,981	1,978
Geekbench 6 Single	—	238

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron N3450 uses the FCBGA1296 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i3-2375M uses BGA1023 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 2400 on the Celeron N3450 versus DDR3-1333 on the Core i3-2375M — the Celeron N3450 supports 80% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core i3-2375M supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 6 (Celeron N3450) vs 16 (Core i3-2375M) — the Core i3-2375M offers 10 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: FCBGA1296 (Celeron N3450) and HM65,HM67,QM67,HM75,HM76,HM77 (Core i3-2375M).

Feature	Celeron N3450	Core i3-2375M
Socket	FCBGA1296	BGA1023
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	2400+80%	DDR3-1333
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	16 GB+100%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	6	16+167%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: true (Celeron N3450) vs VT-x, EPT (Core i3-2375M). Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics 500 (Celeron N3450) and HD Graphics 3000 (Core i3-2375M) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i3-2375M targets Thin & Light Laptop. Direct competitor: Celeron N3450 rivals AMD A4-9120; Core i3-2375M rivals Pentium 997.