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 T3300 vs Core i5-560UM 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 T3300 vs Core i5-560UM: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron T3300

2010

Why buy it

✅Costs $164 less on MSRP ($86 MSRP vs $250 MSRP).
✅Delivers 187.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 11.7 vs 4.1 PassMark/$ ($86 MSRP vs $250 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,005 vs 1,015).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (1 MB vs 3 MB).
❌94.4% higher power demand at 35W vs 18W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i5-560UM can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core i5-560UM

2010

Why buy it

✅+200% larger total L3 cache (3 MB vs 1 MB).
✅Draws 18W instead of 35W, a 17W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Ironlake), while Celeron T3300 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 4.1 vs 11.7 PassMark/$ ($250 MSRP vs $86 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-560UM better than Celeron T3300?

Yes. Core i5-560UM is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 1% 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, Core i5-560UM is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.9% 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 i5-560UM is the stronger fit. You are getting 1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 200% larger total L3 cache (3 MB vs 1 MB).

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

Core i5-560UM is still the much better call for a fresh build. Core i5-560UM comes in 190.7% more expensive on MSRP at $250 MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron T3300 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2010 platform. Even with 187.8% better value on paper (11.7 vs 4.1 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on PGA478.

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

Core i5-560UM makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 200% larger total L3 cache (3 MB vs 1 MB). That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron T3300 vs Core i5-560UM Technical Specifications

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

Celeron T3300

The Celeron T3300 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. Base frequency: 2 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 1,005 points. Launch price was $69.

Core i5-560UM

The Core i5-560UM 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 1.33 GHz, with boost up to 2.13 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1288. Thermal design power (TDP): 18 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,015 points. Launch price was $250.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-560UM is built on the Arrandale (2010−2011) architecture. In PassMark, the Celeron T3300 scores 1,005 against the Core i5-560UM's 1,015 — a 1% lead for the Core i5-560UM. L3 cache: 1 MB on the Celeron T3300 vs 3 MB on the Core i5-560UM.

Feature	Celeron T3300	Core i5-560UM
Cores / Threads	—	2 / 4
Boost Clock	—	2.13 GHz
Base Clock	2 GHz+50%	1.33 GHz
L3 Cache	1 MB	3 MB+200%
L2 Cache	—	512 kB
Process	45 nm	32 nm-29%
Architecture	—	Arrandale (2010−2011)
PassMark	1,005	1,015

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron T3300 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Core i5-560UM uses BGA1288 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron T3300	Core i5-560UM
Socket	PGA478	BGA1288
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	—	800
Max RAM Capacity	—	8
RAM Channels	—	2
ECC Support	—	No
PCIe Lanes	—	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Celeron T3300) / true (Core i5-560UM). The Core i5-560UM includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Ironlake)), while the Celeron T3300 requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Core i5-560UM rivals Core 2 Duo SU9400.

Feature	Celeron T3300	Core i5-560UM
Integrated GPU	—	Yes
IGPU Model	—	Intel HD Graphics (Ironlake)
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	No
Virtualization	—	true

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron T3300 was priced at $86, while the Core i5-560UM came in at $250. On launch pricing ($86 vs $250), Celeron T3300 was $164 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron T3300 delivers 11.7 pts/$ vs 4.1 pts/$ for the Core i5-560UM — making the Celeron T3300 the 96.9% better value option.

Feature	Celeron T3300	Core i5-560UM
MSRP	$86-66%	$250
Performance per Dollar	11.7+185%	4.1
Release Date	2010	2010

Search Celeron T3300 on Amazon

Search Core i5-560UM 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.