Celeron N4100 vs Core i7-2640M

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 N4100 vs Core i7-2640M 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 N4100 vs Core i7-2640M: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron N4100

2017

Why buy it

✅+0.3% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 6W instead of 35W, a 29W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-2640M can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core i7-2640M

2011

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics 3000, while Celeron N4100 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,445 vs 2,453).
❌Launch MSRP is still $346 MSRP, while Celeron N4100 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌483.3% higher power demand at 35W vs 6W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N4100 better than Core i7-2640M?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Core i7-2640M is ahead with a 1.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron N4100 pulls ahead with 0.3% better PassMark.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron N4100 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Celeron N4100 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Celeron N4100 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $346 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.3% better PassMark. Core i7-2640M only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2011 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (7.1 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on PGA988.

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

Celeron N4100 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2017 vs 2011) 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 N4100 vs Core i7-2640M Technical Specifications

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

Celeron N4100

The Celeron N4100 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 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.1 GHz, with boost up to 2.4 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: 2,453 points. Launch price was $107.

Core i7-2640M

The Core i7-2640M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 4 September 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 3.5 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,445 points. Launch price was $346.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron N4100 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Core i7-2640M offers 2 cores / 4 threads — the Celeron N4100 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the Celeron N4100 versus 3.5 GHz on the Core i7-2640M — a 37.3% clock advantage for the Core i7-2640M (base: 1.1 GHz vs 2.8 GHz). The Celeron N4100 uses the Goldmont Plus (2017) architecture (14 nm), while the Core i7-2640M uses Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron N4100 scores 2,453 against the Core i7-2640M's 2,445 — a 0.3% lead for the Celeron N4100. Both processors carry 4 MB of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron N4100	Core i7-2640M
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 4
Boost Clock	2.4 GHz	3.5 GHz+46%
Base Clock	1.1 GHz	2.8 GHz+155%
L3 Cache	4 MB	4 MB
L2 Cache	4 MB+700%	512 kB
Process	14 nm-56%	32 nm
Architecture	Goldmont Plus (2017)	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
PassMark	2,453	2,445
Geekbench 6 Single	—	563
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	1,184

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron N4100 uses the FCBGA1090 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i7-2640M uses PGA988 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron N4100	Core i7-2640M
Socket	FCBGA1090	PGA988
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	—	1333
Max RAM Capacity	—	16
RAM Channels	—	2
ECC Support	—	No
PCIe Lanes	—	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Celeron N4100) / true (Core i7-2640M). The Core i7-2640M includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics 3000), while the Celeron N4100 requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Core i7-2640M rivals Phenom II Black Edition N660.