Celeron N4000 vs Core 2 Solo SU3500

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 N4000 vs Core 2 Solo SU3500 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 N4000 vs Core 2 Solo SU3500: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron N4000

2017

Why buy it

✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 3 MB).
✅Costs $155 less on MSRP ($107 MSRP vs $262 MSRP).
✅Delivers 145.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 13.8 vs 5.6 PassMark/$ ($107 MSRP vs $262 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌100% higher power demand at 6W vs 3W.

Core 2 Solo SU3500

2009

Why buy it

✅Draws 3W instead of 6W, a 3W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,468 vs 1,472).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (3 MB vs 4 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 5.6 vs 13.8 PassMark/$ ($262 MSRP vs $107 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N4000 better than Core 2 Solo SU3500?

Yes. Celeron N4000 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.3% 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 N4000 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.8% 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 N4000 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 33.3% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 3 MB).

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

Celeron N4000 is the better buy right now. Celeron N4000 comes in $155 cheaper on MSRP at $107 MSRP versus $262 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 145.5% better value on MSRP (13.8 vs 5.6 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Celeron N4000 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2017 vs 2009), 33.3% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 3 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 1/1. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron N4000 vs Core 2 Solo SU3500 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron N4000

The Celeron N4000 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 11 December 2017 (7 years ago). It is based on the Goldmont Plus (2017) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.1 GHz, with boost up to 2.6 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB. L2 cache: 4 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1090. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 1,472 points. Launch price was $107.

Core 2 Solo SU3500

The Core 2 Solo SU3500 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 April 2009 (16 years ago). It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Base frequency is 1.3 GHz, with boost up to 1.4 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB. L2 cache: 3 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: BGA956. Thermal design power (TDP): 5.5 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 1,468 points. Launch price was $262.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron N4000 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Core 2 Solo SU3500 offers 1 cores / 1 threads — the Celeron N4000 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the Celeron N4000 versus 1.4 GHz on the Core 2 Solo SU3500 — a 60% clock advantage for the Celeron N4000 (base: 1.1 GHz vs 1.3 GHz). The Celeron N4000 uses the Goldmont Plus (2017) architecture (14 nm), while the Core 2 Solo SU3500 uses Penryn (2008−2011) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron N4000 scores 1,472 against the Core 2 Solo SU3500's 1,468 — a 0.3% lead for the Celeron N4000. L3 cache: 4 MB on the Celeron N4000 vs 3 MB on the Core 2 Solo SU3500.

Feature	Celeron N4000	Core 2 Solo SU3500
Cores / Threads	2 / 2+100%	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2.6 GHz+86%	1.4 GHz
Base Clock	1.1 GHz	1.3 GHz+18%
L3 Cache	4 MB+33%	3 MB
L2 Cache	4 MB+33%	3 MB
Process	14 nm-69%	45 nm
Architecture	Goldmont Plus (2017)	Penryn (2008−2011)
PassMark	1,472	1,468

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron N4000 uses the FCBGA1090 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core 2 Solo SU3500 uses BGA956 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron N4000	Core 2 Solo SU3500
Socket	FCBGA1090	BGA956
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+173%	PCIe 1.1

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron N4000 was priced at $107, while the Core 2 Solo SU3500 came in at $262. On launch pricing ($107 vs $262), Celeron N4000 was $155 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron N4000 delivers 13.8 pts/$ vs 5.6 pts/$ for the Core 2 Solo SU3500 — making the Celeron N4000 the 84.2% better value option.

Feature	Celeron N4000	Core 2 Solo SU3500
MSRP	$107-59%	$262
Performance per Dollar	13.8+146%	5.6
Release Date	2017	2009

Search Celeron N4000 on Amazon

Search Core 2 Solo SU3500 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.