Celeron U3600 vs E1-1500

Celeron U3600 vs E1-1500 Performance Spectrum

Celeron U3600

2 / 2

625

0.0%

660

+5.6%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

About PassMark

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 U3600 vs E1-1500 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 U3600 vs E1-1500: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron U3600

2011

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (625 vs 660).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 4.7 vs 11.0 PassMark/$ ($134 MSRP vs $60 MSRP).

E1-1500

2013

Why buy it

✅Costs $74 less on MSRP ($60 MSRP vs $134 MSRP).
✅Delivers 135.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 11.0 vs 4.7 PassMark/$ ($60 MSRP vs $134 MSRP).

Trade-offs

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

Quick Answers

So, is E1-1500 better than Celeron U3600?

Yes. E1-1500 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 5.6% 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, E1-1500 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.5% 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, E1-1500 is the stronger fit. You are getting 5.6% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

E1-1500 is the better buy right now. E1-1500 comes in $74 cheaper on MSRP at $60 MSRP versus $134 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 135.8% better value on MSRP (11.0 vs 4.7 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

E1-1500 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2011) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron U3600 vs E1-1500 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron U3600

The Celeron U3600 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Westmere (2010−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.2 GHz, with boost up to 0.1 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1288. Thermal design power (TDP): 18 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-800. Passmark benchmark score: 625 points. Launch price was $69.

E1-1500

The E1-1500 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Zacate (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.48 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 40 nm process technology. Socket: FT1. Thermal design power (TDP): 18 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 660 points. Launch price was $50.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron U3600 and E1-1500 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 0.1 GHz on the Celeron U3600 versus 1.48 GHz on the E1-1500 — a 174.7% clock advantage for the E1-1500. The Celeron U3600 uses the Westmere (2010−2011) architecture (32 nm), while the E1-1500 uses Zacate (2011−2013) (40 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron U3600 scores 625 against the E1-1500's 660 — a 5.4% lead for the E1-1500. L3 cache: 2 MB on the Celeron U3600 vs 0 kB on the E1-1500.

Feature	Celeron U3600	E1-1500
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	0.1 GHz	1.48 GHz+1380%
Base Clock	1.2 GHz	—
L3 Cache	2 MB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB	512K (per core)
Process	32 nm-20%	40 nm
Architecture	Westmere (2010−2011)	Zacate (2011−2013)
PassMark	625	660+6%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron U3600 uses the BGA1288 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the E1-1500 uses FT1 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron U3600	E1-1500
Socket	BGA1288	FT1
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron U3600 was priced at $134, while the E1-1500 came in at $60. On launch pricing ($134 vs $60), E1-1500 was $74 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron U3600 delivers 4.7 pts/$ vs 11.0 pts/$ for the E1-1500 — making the E1-1500 the 80.9% better value option.

Feature	Celeron U3600	E1-1500
MSRP	$134	$60-55%
Performance per Dollar	4.7	11.0+134%
Release Date	2011	2013

Search Celeron U3600 on Amazon

Search E1-1500 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.