Celeron N3450 vs Core i7-3689Y

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 i7-3689Y 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 i7-3689Y: 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

✅+0.7% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 6W instead of 512W, a 506W reduction.

Trade-offs

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

Core i7-3689Y

2013

Why buy it

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

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,967 vs 1,981).
❌8433.3% higher power demand at 512W vs 6W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N3450 better than Core i7-3689Y?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Core i7-3689Y is ahead with a 2.1% average FPS lead across 29 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron N3450 pulls ahead with 0.7% better PassMark.

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 0.7% 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 0.7% better PassMark.

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 i7-3689Y 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 i7-3689Y

The Core i7-3689Y is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 8 January 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.5 GHz, with boost up to 2.6 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1023. Thermal design power (TDP): 13 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,967 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron N3450 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Core i7-3689Y offers 2 cores / 4 threads — the Celeron N3450 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.2 GHz on the Celeron N3450 versus 2.6 GHz on the Core i7-3689Y — a 16.7% clock advantage for the Core i7-3689Y (base: 1.1 GHz vs 1.5 GHz). The Celeron N3450 uses the Apollo Lake (2014−2016) architecture (14 nm), while the Core i7-3689Y uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron N3450 scores 1,981 against the Core i7-3689Y's 1,967 — a 0.7% lead for the Celeron N3450. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Celeron N3450 vs 4 MB (total) on the Core i7-3689Y.

Feature	Celeron N3450	Core i7-3689Y
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 4
Boost Clock	2.2 GHz	2.6 GHz+18%
Base Clock	1.1 GHz	1.5 GHz+36%
L3 Cache	0 kB	4 MB (total)
L2 Cache	2 MB	256K (per core)+12700%
Process	14 nm-36%	22 nm
Architecture	Apollo Lake (2014−2016)	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
PassMark	1,981	1,967
Geekbench 6 Single	—	507
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	1,100

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron N3450 uses the FCBGA1296 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i7-3689Y uses BGA1023 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 2400 on the Celeron N3450 versus DDR3L-1600 on the Core i7-3689Y — the Celeron N3450 supports 50% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core i7-3689Y supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 6 (Celeron N3450) vs 16 (Core i7-3689Y) — the Core i7-3689Y offers 10 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: FCBGA1296 (Celeron N3450) and HM77,QM77 (Core i7-3689Y).

Feature	Celeron N3450	Core i7-3689Y
Socket	FCBGA1296	BGA1023
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	2400+50%	DDR3L-1600
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	32 GB+300%
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, VT-d (Core i7-3689Y). Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics 500 (Celeron N3450) and Intel HD Graphics 4000 (Core i7-3689Y) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i7-3689Y targets Ultra-Low Power Laptop. Direct competitor: Celeron N3450 rivals AMD A4-9120; Core i7-3689Y rivals AMD A10-4655M.

Feature	Celeron N3450	Core i7-3689Y
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	Intel HD Graphics 500	Intel HD Graphics 4000
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	true	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	—	Ultra-Low Power Laptop